Forever Infallible in Errant (Jeffrey Khoo)

Forever
Infallible &
Inerrant
Remembering Gods Extraordinary Providence
in Preserving His Inspired Words through
the Traditional & Reformation Texts
Underlying the King James Bible
Forever Infallible and Inerrant

Remembering Gods Extraordinary Providence
in Preserving His Inspired Words through
the Traditional and Reformation Texts
Underlying the King James Bible
Edited by
Jeffrey Khoo
Far Eastern Bible College Press

2011
ii
Title: Forever Infallible and Inerrant: Remembering Gods Extraordinary

Providence in Preserving His Inspired Words through the Traditional and
Reformation Texts Underlying the King James Bible
Year Published: 2011
Publisher: Far Eastern Bible College Press
Address: 9A Gilstead Road Singapore 309063
Website: www.febc.edu.sg
Editor: Jeffrey Khoo
IT Manager: Murray Ong
Typesetter: Wendy Teng
Cover Design: Eric Lim
Sponsor: True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
ISBN: 978-981-07-0109-3
The Hebraica font used to publish this work is available from Linguists Software, Inc.,
PO Box 580, Edmonds, WA 98020-0580 USA tel (425) 775-1130
www.linguistsoftware.com.
iii
DEDICATION
To the
Rev Dr Timothy Tow (1920-2009)
Founding Father of the Bible-Presbyterian Church Movement in
Singapore and South East Asia, and
Founding Principal of Far Eastern Bible College
this volume is affectionately dedicated
iv
CONTENTS
Preface .......................................................................... xvi
Contributors ................................................................ xviii
PART I Prologia
1 Commemorating 400 Years of the King James
Bible ............................................................................ 2
Jeffrey Khoo
2 Earnestly Contend for the Faith .................................. 5

Timothy Tow
3 Revisionism Ancient and Modern ............................... 9

S H Tow
4 Gods Word for the End Time ................................... 11

S H Tow
5 A 21st Century Reformation Movement for the

Verbal and Plenary Preservation of the Holy
Scriptures ................................................................... 15
Jeffrey Khoo
6 Is the Preservation of Scripture a Doctrine Worth

Dying For? ............................................................... 20
Michael Koech
7 FEBC Faculty United on Verbal Plenary

Preservation (VPP) .................................................. 26
PART II Theologia
8 My Glory Will I Not Give to Another
(Isaiah 42:8) ............................................................. 32
Timothy Tow
9 Three Heaven and Earth Moving Statements from

Gods Mouth Settle the Question Whether
His Words are Preserved ......................................... 34
Timothy Tow
10 Gods Special Providential Care of the Text of

Scripture .................................................................. 35
Timothy Tow
11 The Providence of God ............................................ 38

Jeffrey Khoo
12 Seven Biblical Axioms in Ascertaining the

Authentic and Authoritative Texts of
the Holy Scriptures .................................................. 43
Jeffrey Khoo
vi
Contents
13 Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations: In

Search of the Biblical Identity of the
Bible-Presbyterian Church ...................................... 65
Jeffrey Khoo
14 Canon, Texts, and Words: Lost and Found or

Preserved and Identified? ........................................ 86
Jeffrey Khoo
15 The Holy Spirit and the Word of God ................... 117

Nguyen Gia Hien
16 A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal

Plenary Preservation .............................................. 126
Carol Lee
17 Biblical Presuppositions in Approaching the

Textual Debate ....................................................... 138
Paul Ferguson
18 Why We Should Regard the Bible as

Authoritative .......................................................... 142
Prabhudas Koshy
19 If We Reject the Doctrine of the Perfect

Preservation of the Bible ....................................... 147
Prabhudas Koshy
vii
20 Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa? A Case

for the Present Perfection and Authority of
the Holy Scriptures ................................................ 149
Jeffrey Khoo
21 Attacks on the Authority of Scripture by

Apostates ............................................................... 166
Paul Ferguson
22 The Deadly Sin of Attacking the Bible ................ 170

Timothy Tow
23 The Dean Burgon Oath .......................................... 175

Jeffrey Khoo
PART III Biblia

24 John Owen on the Perfect Bible ............................ 180
Jeffrey Khoo
25 Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?

Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7 ...................................... 192
Quek Suan Yew
26 Jesus View of the Holy Scripture: An Exposition

of Matthew 5:17-19 ............................................... 195
Prabhudas Koshy
viii
Contents
27 Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt

Septuagint? ............................................................ 202
Prabhudas Koshy
28 Lost Words in our Bible?....................................... 205

Jeffrey Khoo
29 Mistakes in the Bible? ........................................... 211

Jeffrey Khoo
30 Gods Word Is Settled For Ever (Psalm 119:89) ... 216

George Skariah
31 Undermining Gods Word by Subtle Study

Bibles ..................................................................... 221
Jeffrey Khoo
32 Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh? ...................... 231

Quek Suan Yew
33 The Numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7: A

Solution in Favour of the Inerrancy of the
Verbally and Plenarily Preserved Text .................. 237
Nelson Were
34 NIV Turns Land of Sinim into Region of

Aswan by a Twist of the Ball-Pen! ...................... 242
Timothy Tow
ix
35 Are the Last Twelve Verses of Mark Really

Marks? .................................................................. 245
Jeffrey Khoo
36 The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11):

An Inspired Account of Johns Gospel Proving
Jesus Christ as Light of the World ........................ 247
Jeffrey Khoo
37 A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and

Authenticity of the Johannine Comma: Does a
Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the
Doctrine of the Trinity? ......................................... 250
Jeffrey Khoo
38 The Word of God for All Nations .......................... 253

Phil Stringer
PART IV Apologia
39 A Plea for a Perfect Bible ...................................... 323
Jeffrey Khoo
40 My Reply to James D Prices Review of

A Plea for a Perfect Bible .................................. 337
Jeffrey Khoo
41 Non-Ruckmanite Answers to Anti-KJV

Questions ............................................................... 343
Jeffrey Khoo
x
Contents
42 Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration Do Without

Verbal Plenary Preservation? The Achilles
Heel of Princeton Bibliology ................................ 367
Jeffrey Khoo
43 Inspired Textual Criticism? ................................... 386

Jeffrey Khoo
44 Bruce Metzger and the Curse of Textual

Criticism ................................................................ 393
Jeffrey Khoo
45 The Blasphemy and Deception of The Da Vinci

Code ....................................................................... 398
Jeffrey Khoo and Quek Suan Yew
46 Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique

of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man ...... 409
Jeffrey Khoo
47 The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism:

One Bible Only? or Yea Hath God Said? .......... 442
Jeffrey Khoo
48 Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism,

and Biblical Preservation: A Critique of
Gods Word in Our Hands: The Bible
Preserved for Us .................................................... 488
Jeffrey Khoo
xi
49 Multiversions Onlyism: A Critique of

King James Onlyism: A New Sect ......................... 504
Jeffrey Khoo
50 Preservation of the Bible: Providential or

Miraculous? A Response to Jon Rehurek
of The Masters Seminary ..................................... 510
Paul Ferguson
51 Errors in the King James Version? A Response

to William W Combs of Detroit Baptist
Seminary ................................................................ 544
Jeffrey Khoo
52 A Public Response to Mr Lim Seng Hoos Open

Letter and Paper against the Verbal Plenary
Preservation of Scripture ....................................... 572
Jeffrey Khoo
53 Contending in Truth, and Truth Affirms the VPP

of Scripture: A Loving Response to Rev ___s
Paper Contending in Truth and in Love ............ 599
Jeffrey Khoo
54 In Defence of the Far Eastern Bible College, the

Reformed Faith, and the Reformation Bible ......... 617
Jeffrey Khoo
55 Bearing True Witness: A Response to Bearing

False Witness by Charles Seet ............................. 632
Jeffrey Khoo
xii
Contents
56 Biblical Authority: A Response to Sermons by

Colin Wong and Charles Seet against Verbal
Plenary Preservation .............................................. 642
Jeffrey Khoo
57 Did God Write Only One Bible? ........................... 648

Jeffrey Khoo
58 Making the Word of God of None Effect: An

Examination of the Paper, Mark Them
Which Cause Divisions, by Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church .................................... 651
Jeffrey Khoo
59 A Review of Jack Sins Article, A Grave Matter:

Verity, Sagacity and Clarity in the Textual
Debate .................................................................. 659
Biak Lawm Thang
PART V Historia
60 The Story of the English Bible: A Comparison
between Faithful Bibles of the Protestant
Reformation and Corrupt Versions of
Modern-Day Deformation ..................................... 666
Jeffrey Khoo
61 The Reformation Bible .......................................... 681

Jeffrey Khoo
xiii
62 The International Council of Christian Churches

(ICCC) and the King James Bible ......................... 685
Jeffrey Khoo
63 Kicking Against the Pricks: The SCCC

Contradicts the ICCC on VPP ............................... 688
Jeffrey Khoo
64 The Resolutions of the ICCC and SCCC on

Bible Versions ........................................................ 692
Paul Ferguson
65 Trinitarian Bible Society, Verbal Plenary

Preservation, and the Texts Underlying
the Authorised Version .......................................... 732
Paul Ferguson
66 A Brief History, Purposes, and Goals of

the Dean Burgon Society ....................................... 747
D A Waite
PART VI Homilia
67 Why Only KJV? .................................................... 761
Jeffrey Khoo
68 No Perfectly Preserved Word of God Today? ....... 765

Tan Kian Sing
xiv
Conte nts
69 The Unfinished Commission (Matt 28:18-20) ...... 768

Tim othy Tow
70 Will Our B-P Sons Defend the Faith? ................... 776

Je ffre y Khoo
PART VII Testimonia

71 A History of My Defence of the King James
Version ................................................................... 781
Edward F Hills
72 From the Gnostic Critical Greek Text to the

Traditional Received New Testament Text............ 787
D A Waite
73 From RSV to KJV ................................................. 790

Je ffre y Khoo
74 Textual Reception or Textual Criticism?

Testimonies from Students Who Took the
DVBC Course on The Bible Stands at
FEBC from April 28 to May 3, 2008 .................... 794
Recommended Sources ............................................... 800
xv
PREFACE
The battle for the Bible rages on! The old serpent continues to hiss,
Yea, hath God said? (Gen 3:1). The attacks on the authenticity and
authority of Bible by Dan Brown and his bestseller, The Da Vinci Code,
and Bart Ehrman and his bestseller Misquoting Jesus, and Beacham &
Bauders One Bible Only? require all who believe in the 100%
inspiration and 100% preservation of the Holy Scriptures to mount a
stout defence of Gods forever infallible and inerrant Words. Jesus for
emphasis said three times, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my
words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33).
In thanksgiving to God for the 400th anniversary of the King James
Bible on Reformation Sunday, 30 October 2011, the choirs of Berean,
Calvary Pandan, Calvary Tengah, Gethsemane, True Life and Truth
Bible-Presbyterian Churches, and the Far Eastern Bible College with one
mind and heart rendered to God a worshipful evening of praise, singing
to the theme of Gods Word, Protected, Proclaimed, Practised at the
Sunset Gospel Hour of Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church. The
Rev Dr Quek Suan Yew was the Lords messenger.
In commemoration of this great event, the Far Eastern Bible College
has published this book (in pdf) entitled, Forever Infallible and Inerrant:
Remembering Gods Extraordinary Providence in Preserving His
Inspired Words through the Traditional and Reformation Texts
Underlying the King James Bible. It is the result of a decade or two of
research and writing in defence of the total infallibility and inerrancy, and
absolute authority of the inspired and preserved Words of God in the
original languages, and the trustworthiness and accuracy of the
Authorised, King James Version of the Holy Bible. Packaged as a Bible
Resource DVD, this digital library contains over 80 articles, books, audio
and video lectures by the faculty and alumni of Far Eastern Bible
College, and other pastors and theologians from USA and UK.
This Bible Resource DVD is produced with the Pauline injunction
in mind, If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou
xvi
Preface
shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of

faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Tim 4:6).
True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church is the kind sponsor of this Bible
Resource. It is hoped that its contents would encourage all Bible
believers and students to obey this Pauline command, Take heed unto
thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou
shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee. (1 Tim 4:16).
Remember these words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, For
verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever
therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but
whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the
kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:18, 19). May we never forget these words
of promise and of warning especially in these last days of unbelief and
apostasy.
Rev Dr Jeffrey Khoo
Pastor, True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
Principal, Far Eastern Bible College
xvii
CONTRIBUTORS
Biak Lawm Thang (BTh, MDiv, ThM) is Pastor of First BiblePresbyterian Church of Yangon.
Paul Ferguson (BSc, LLB, MRE, DRE) is Pastor of Calvary Tengah
Bible-Presbyterian Church. He hails from Northern Ireland, and is a
graduate of Foundations Bible College, USA.
Edward F Hills (BTh, ThM, ThD) was Harvard scholar and author of The
King James Version Defended.
Jeffrey Khoo (BTh, MDiv, STM, PhD) is Pastor of True Life BiblePresbyterian Church and Principal of Far Eastern Bible College.
Michael Koech (BTh, MDiv, ThM) is Pastor of Africa Gospel Unity
Church, and Principal of Bomet Bible Institute, Kenya.
Prabhudas Koshy (BSc, BTh, MDiv, ThM, ThD) is Pastor of Gethsemane
Bible-Presbyterian Church, and Lecturer in Old Testament and Biblical
Hebrew at Far Eastern Bible College.
Carol Lee (BBA, PGDE, MEd, MDiv) is Lecturer in Christian Education
at Far Eastern Bible College and a full-time worker of Truth BiblePresbyterian Church.
Nguyen Gia Hien (BA, MDiv, ThM) is Pastor of Brisbane BiblePresbyterian Church, Australia.
Quek Suan Yew (BArch, BTh, MDiv, STM, ThD) is Pastor of Calvary
Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church, and Lectuer in Old Testament and
Contemporary Theology at Far Eastern Bible College.
xviii
Contributors
George Skariah (BA, BTh, MA, MDiv, ThM, ThD) is Pastor of

Covenant Bible-Presbyterian Church, Bangalore, India.
Phil Stringer (BSc, MA, PhD, DRE) is Pastor of Ravenswood Baptist
Church in Chicago, and President of the William Carey Bible Society.
Tan Kian Sing (BEng, GDBA, MDiv) is Pastor of Berean BiblePresbyterian Church, and Lecturer in New Testament at Far Eastern Bible
College
S H Tow (MD, DD) is Senior Pastor of Calvary Pandan BiblePresbyterian Church, author of Beyond Versions, and contributing editor
of The Defined King James Bible.
Timothy Tow (MDiv, STM, DD) was Founding Pastor of Life BiblePresbyterian Church (1950-2003) and True Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church (2003-2009). He was also Founder and First Principal of Far
Eastern Bible College.
D A Waite (BA, MA, ThM, ThD, PhD) is Pastor of Bible for Today
Baptist Church, and President of the Dean Burgon Society.
Nelson Were (BTh, MDiv, ThM) is a lecturer at Faith College of the
Bible, Eldoret, Kenya.
xix
PART I
Prologia
1
COMMEMORATING 400 YEARS OF THE
KING JAMES BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
The year 2011 is the 400 th
anniversary of the Authorised Version or
King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. It
is no accident that the KJV should outlast
and outstrip all other English versions to
be the bestselling and best loved Bible of
all time. The challenge of the many
modern English versions notwithstanding,
the KJV remains popular and highly
ranked on the Bible bestsellers list. The
KJV is especially well loved by those
who sincerely believe in the preservation
of the inspired Scriptures by extraordinary
providence. It is defended particularly by
those who earnestly contend for the faith,
especially the old-time faith of our
Reformation fathers. While many mainline denominations have departed
from the historic Christian Faith, there are still remnant Baptist,
Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian and Reformed churches
which continue to stand firm on the good old Protestant Faith, uphold the
Traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts underlying the Reformation Bibles
best represented by the KJV, and practise separation from all forms of
unbelief and apostasy.
The Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) stoutly affirms the twin
doctrines of the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages. In
keeping with the Reformation Faith and Reformed Theology, we uphold
the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus on
which the KJV is based. The battle for the divine inspiration of the Bible
2
Commemorating 400 Years of the King James Bible
against the modernists and neo-evangelicals was fought and won in the
20th Century. The battle for the Bible continues into the 21st Century, this
time for its jot-and-tittle preservation against the textual critics and neodeists. We cannot but earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints (Jude 3), and for the present infallibility and
inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures as the sole, supreme, and final authority
of Christian faith and life (Matt 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, 17).
What does VPP mean? Verbal means every word to the jot and
tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18). Plenary means the Scripture as a whole
with all the words intact (Matt 24:35, 1 Pet 1:25). So VPP means the
whole of Scripture with all its words even to the jot and tittle is
perfectly preserved by God without any loss of the original words,
prophecies, promises, commandments, doctrines, and truths, not
only in the words of salvation, but also the words of history,
geography and science. Every book, every chapter, every verse, every
word, every syllable, every letter is infallibly preserved by God
Himself to the last iota.
What and where are the preserved words of God today? They are the
inspired OT Hebrew words and NT Greek words the prophets, the
apostles, the church fathers, the reformers used which are today found in
the long and continuously abiding and preserved words underlying the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the time-tested and timehonoured KJV, and not in the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and
critical Westcott-Hort texts underlying most of the modern English
versions which share the corruptions found in those manuscripts.
Historically speaking, VPP is:
(1) As old as the Bible itself since God had promised to preserve
His inspired words in Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 24:35 etc by His
singular care and providence. The Lord is true and faithful to His
promises and cannot fail.
(2) As old as the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and its
Catechisms (1643-8) which is subscribed to by all Bible-Presbyterian
Churches and also the Far Eastern Bible College. The original language
Scriptures that the WCF upheld as authoritative and authentic (1.8) must
necessarily be the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus
Receptus, ie the very Scriptures underlying the KJV (1611) which they
used and quoted from, and not the corrupt Westcott and Hort Text (1881)
3
which became the underlying Text of the new and modern English
versions today.
(3) As old as the Bible-Presbyterian (BP) Church and the Far
Eastern Bible College (FEBC) since the KJV was the English Bible of
both institutions from the beginning (1950/1962). The KJV was upheld as
the Word of God. VPP simply underscores the infallibility and inerrancy
of the original language Scriptures underlying the KJV. VPP is both
logical and consistent with the KJV as used and highly regarded by the
BP denomination and FEBC.
FEBC was founded to defend the Bible. The Three-Man Committee
comprising Rev Dr Timothy Tow, Dr Tow Siang Hwa and Rev Quek
Kiok Chiang in a 1960 statement said, A Bible College that is to be
called a Bible College is called to defend the Bible! May the proposed
Far Eastern Bible College neglect not this part of the holy ministry
that is committed to her charge. May the Lord use FEBC to defend
the good old Book and the good old Faith. Thus saith the LORD, Stand
ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way,
and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We
will not walk therein (Jer 6:16). May FEBC not become like the many
today who attack VPI and/or VPP, spurning the good old Book and the
good old Faith, and say without shame, We will not walk therein.
2
EARNESTLY CONTEND FOR THE FAITH
Timothy Tow
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints (Jude 3).
The title of my message is Earnestly Contend for the Faith. The
apostle Jude was writing to the believers and at first his idea was to talk
of the common salvation. That of course will edify our hearts. But the
apostle Jude says, When I desired to do this thing, it was needful for me
to exhort you. He was constrained by the Holy Spirit that this one thing
was very important: that you should earnestly contend for the faith. The
whole epistle is devoted to this one themeearnestly contend for the
faith. And who are the examples of those whom we must oppose? Three
people are mentionedCain, Balaam and Core. These are rebels who do
not obey the faith, who resist the Lord.
Why should we earnestly contend for the faith? We need to contend
for the faith because there are so many who are against the Lord, and they
are mentioned as followsfalse Christs, false prophets, false apostles,
false teachers, false spirits, false witnesses and false brethren. And we
have three synoptic gospelsMatthew, Mark and Lukewarning against
false prophets and false Christs, from the mouth of our Lord Himself, and
three epistles, namely, Jude that we have just read, and 2 Peter and 1
John. But the fact is that the whole life of Jesus in His ministry of 3!
years was a constant battle against this wicked generation.
What is the wicked generation? They are the scribes, the Jewish
theologians, and the Pharisees, the high churchmen. They were constantly
against Jesus, against His claim to be one with the Father, He is the Son
of God, He is equal to the Father and that He can forgive sins. Who can
forgive sins but God? But Jesus countered right away, That you may
know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins, Rise up
and walk. He said this to the paralytic that was brought by four men.
And he arose and took up his bedding and he walked away praising the
Lord. Our Lord Jesus Christ, when He preached the gospel to the
multitudes had also to constantly expose the false prophets in the church.
This is the wicked generation. Now we ask ourselves: Is there such a
wicked generationfalse Christs, false prophets, false teachers, in high
places today? Exactly the same as in the Jewish Church, so it is in the
Christian church.
Why has the Lord blessed the Bible-Presbyterian (B-P) Movement?
I will tell you my own testimony. I went to study in America in January
1948. One wintry morning there came a very distinguished gentleman. He
was none other than Dr Carl McIntire who has just been received into
glory and his funeral was held on March 26, 2002. He told us about the
great danger in the church because they were going to form the World
Council of Churches to extend their influence, which is the Ecumenical
Movement. By now I believe you know what is ecumenical. One
inhabited world, one roof under which all denominations must unite and
all the Protestant denominations will return to Rome. That is the meaning
of the Ecumenical Movement. Dr McIntire called for young men like us
to join a counter movement called the 20 th Century Reformation
Movement. It is to carry on the 16th Century Reformation Movement of
Martin Luther and to separate from the Ecumenical Movement. Well,
when I went to seminary I had some idea of Martin Luther. I knew that he
was a reformer. My heart was set on fire. My heart was knit to his heart,
like David and Jonathan. I took such a keen interest in the Reformation
Movement that I have been helped by the grace of God to stand firm to
this day. I have taken part in many oppositions raised by the ICCC
(International Council of Christian Churches) to speak against
Romanism, Ecumenism, Neo-evangelicalism, Charismatism.
But now the battle is centred on the Bible. Because you suddenly
realise that the market is flooded with well over one hundred new
versions during the last 50 years. These new Bibles so-called depart a
great deal from the Received Text upon which the King James Bible, the
Bible that we use, is founded. The Bible is two and two are four. The
Bible has only one answer. The Bible has only one teaching. That is the
reason why we founded the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) to stand
against those who are false prophets and false teachers. The battle must
Earnestly Contend for the Faith
continue because if FEBC does not take a strong stand against the erosion
of faith we will be toppled.
In 1947 there was founded in Los Angeles the Fuller Seminary. It
was founded by Charles Fuller, the preacher of the old-fashioned revival
hour. And he had five faculty members that were true to the Word. But in
no time liberalism entered it and through one man the whole seminary
was toppled. Today, Fuller Seminary is one that appears to be
evangelical, but is most diabolical.
Now the battle today is mainly on the Bible. As I told you there are
well over one hundred versions. The first version that came in to take the
place of the King James Bible which has been reigning supreme for the
last 400 years, was the translation of the Revised Standard Version (RSV)
in 1952. The ICCC at once went to battle and exposed this Bible to be a
poisonous one. It translates Behold a virgin shall conceive into Behold
a young woman shall conceive. What young woman cannot conceive?
Our council took a strong stand against the RSV and its sale was
restricted. But in 1978 there arrived the NIV. It is now sweeping the
Christian world. I am very sure you know what the NIV is, the New
International Version. The NIV is not based on the Textus Receptus on
which the King James Bible is based but is based on the corrupt text of
Westcott and Hort. Who are these two men? They are two Cambridge
professors of Greek who spent many years to manoeuvre the Anglican
Church. The Anglican Church agreed with them that they needed a new
translation and so they produced in 1881 the Revised Version.
When I was a boy, I bought a Revised Version but the Revised
Version attacked point after point our old Bible. Over 9,900 words are
altered, deleted. Out of the Bible, the equivalent of eight chapters, First
and Second Peter, are scissored. Let me ask you, suppose you have one
page torn from your Bible, can you use it? I will not use that Bible. But
when you have torn away 8 chapters and deleted and changed 9,900
words, all the more you will not have it. As a result, it died a diseased
death. After some years it went out of publication because the people,
true Christians, would not buy a poisonous Bible.
But now, just as poisonous as the Revised Version is the NIV. To
prove to you the NIV is a very corrupt Bible, it has taken out the
passage of the woman taken in adultery. But I tell you that the story of the
woman taken in adultery is the most magnanimous account of Jesus life.
7
The Jews tried to trap Jesus. To put Him in a place where they say since
she is guilty of adultery she must be stoned to death. But any good lawyer
could challenge them, If she is taken in adultery what happens to the
adulterer, the man? Why dont you bring him here? Jesus is the Son of
God. He is God. Can puny man try to outwit God? Jesus retorted, Who
is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Dr John Sung has a very
humorous way of illustrating the situation. From 70 downwards to 15 one
by one slunk away like a beaten dog. When Jesus looked around
everyone was gone. Then Jesus forgave the woman, Go and sin no
more. Is not that most expressive of the marvellous grace of God? It
strikes at us. Who can say I am pure? A glance of the eye will cause us to
commit adultery in the heart. But NIV takes out the precious Word.
The last 12 verses of Mark are also missing and 1 John 5:7. In the
King James Bible, we have three in heaven who are witnessesthe
Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost. It is a most definite statement on
the Holy Trinity. Today, the great battle is on the Bible. Beloved, when I
gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was
needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly
contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
I want to apply to a very excellent magazinethe Bible Witness.
Truly it is full of spiritual food. But I must tell you, the church is very
sick. Just like this time I got sick. I have never been sick for so long. It is
terrible. Now I can sympathise with those that are in trouble. And we
must realise that we are in trouble. In the B-P Church today we are the
very few who are standing for the faith. So I told the Rev Das Koshy,
Today I am going to challenge you. First of all, that when the next Bible
Witness comes out, it will have one special section on defending the
faith. And so I pray that the Lord will give His Church much power by
taking a stand for His cause.
Remember Satan has the ability to change himself 72 times like the
monkey god. Knowing his tactics, let us continue to earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Amen.
3
REVISIONISM ANCIENT AND MODERN
S H Tow
God had spoken: His Word standeth sure, forever settled, inerrant,
infallible, perfect. Who dare doubt or question it but the father of lies and
enemy of truth. His master stroke Yea, hath God said? stumbled our
first parents and plunged the race into sorrow and curse.
That was revisionism of the spoken word at the dawn of history.
In time God gave the Written Word: holy men of God wrote as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost. That Word was denied to Gods people
by unfaithful custodians, until God sent the Reformation and the Bible of
the Reformationthe King James Version (KJV)to lift the darkness of
a thousand years.
Lovers and defenders of the KJV affirm with Dean Burgon of
Oxford that
The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne.
Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable of it,
every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none
other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less,
but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless,
unerring, supreme.
Through three centuries, the KJV reigned supreme, the

unchallenged and unrivalled Word of God. But the enemy of truth, with
diabolical cunning and subtlety, schemed its overthrow through a
Committee of Revision headed by Westcott and Hort, masterminds of
subversion and champions of corrupted and doctored texts.
Their Revised Version of 1881, a masterpiece of intrigue, and
secret weapon of the Counter-Reformation, breached the dike of Holy
Scripture, and a hundred corrupt Modern English Versions poured
through the floodgate of Revisionism. In the century following, corrupt
versions had all but replaced the King James Bible.
Thank God, it was all but: He has yet a valiant remnant who stand
against the tide of corrupt English Versions, like the faithful seven
thousand in Israel (1 Kgs 19:18), their knees have not bowed before the
Baal of Modern Revisionism.
This Twenty-first Century Battle of the Versions intensifies as the
father of lies uses every wily stratagem to overthrow the citadel of
Biblical fundamentalism, hurling false accusations against the beloved
translation and the underlying texts.
But we affirm our unshakable faith in the KJV as the very Word of
Godthe best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of
the Bible in the English language that is based on Gods infallible,
inerrant, inspired and preserved texts.
May all who love the Word of God affirm with the Scripture, that
the law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the
LORD is sure, making wise the simple (Ps 19:7), and that All scripture
is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may
be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16,17).
Let God be true but every man a liar. Gods Word is truth. Only the
KJV and its underlying texts preserve that truth perfectly.
10
4
GODS WORD FOR THE END TIME
S H Tow
The King James Bible (KJB) is Gods instrument for
communicating the Gospel to all nations. It is the trustworthy Word
written in the language which reaches to the greatest number: not German
or French or any other language, but English. Why? In this century
English has become the undisputed global medium of communication,
accelerated by the computer revolution with its instantaneous
communications breakthrough. No country can afford not to use
Englishthe computer language. By means of English the Gospel
message reaches to every nation on earth.
With this the adversary is not pleased. Not surprising, then, that the
KJB is the target of his venomous attack.
In the closing moments of the second millennium AD, momentous
happenings signal: history has entered its final hour. The Lord of history
is coming! Are you ready? Our Lord Jesus, the Word of God, shall return
as Judge,
and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. . . . And out of his mouth
goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall
rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness
and wrath of almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a
name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS (Rev 19:11-16).
The conflict of the ages builds to a climax. Our risen and ever living Lord
comes to judge the nations. Today, confusion and uncertainty reign.
Questions are asked: which version? But no authoritative answers are
forthcoming.
Until the first half of this century there was one unchallenged
authoritative Bible, KJB or AV. Today a bewildering assortment of one
hundred new versions confronts the church, with more clamouring to be
born. What is happening? Why this profusion of versions?
11
When I was saved in 1935 through the ministry of Dr John Sung,

Chinas Flame of God and greatest evangelist, I bought my first Bible,
the KJB, precious Word of God. Ever since, this version has been my
constant and treasured companion, and shall be till I reach journeys end.
When my elder brotherTimothy Towgraduate of Faith
Theological Seminary, Wilmington, Delaware, founded the BiblePresbyterian Church in 1950, the Constitution (Article 4.2.1) read:
We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures
in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as
the Word of God, the supreme authority in faith and life.
That is a sound and solid article of faith concerning the Scriptures and
the Word of God, but there was no mention of version. The need did
not seem to have arisen then, 60 years ago. Today we have added a
qualifying article:
We believe that the KJV (King James Version or Authorised Version, not
the New King James Version) is the most faithful and accurate translation of
Gods Word, and is to be used exclusively at all gatherings of the Church.
Time changes things and circumstances, and that makes it necessary to

have safeguards.
At the Far Eastern Bible College (founded in 1962) the Principal
requires Faculty and Board to publicly take the Dean Burgon oath at its
annual Convocation:
I swear in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that
I believe the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the
throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable
of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is
none other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it
less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless,
unerring, supreme. So help me God. Amen.
God preserve our Bible College. Institutions everywhere are falling

to the adversarys wiles: he is smarter than we think. He deceives many to
deceive others.
A young man from Singapore went to Bob Jones University, a KJB
proponent. Four years later, he returned with his Masters degree, a KJB
opponent. Every version of the Bible is good! With brilliant but
misguided scholarship he critiqued Dr Waites Defending the King James
Bible to shreds.
12
Gods Word for the End Time
Deception, deception, deception! This is a cardinal sign of our

Lords soon return. Read Matthew 24 and be warned. The end time is
marked by the worldwide upsurge of false prophets, false preachers, false
doctrines, and false Bibles.
Satan is the master deceiver. He perverts the Word, changes the
message: he adds to it, diminishes from it, manipulates it. This has been
his strategy from first to last. He injects doubt: Yea, hath God said? He
causes disaffection, engenders rebellion, promotes confusion with a
mixed multitude of Bibles.
The days are numbered wherein we may freely worship God in
spirit and in truth and freely possess and use the KJB. Therefore,
brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught (2
Thess 2:15), holding forth the word of life (Phil 2:16), and holding
fast the faithful word (Titus 1:9).
Thank God for keeping us in Singapore faithful to His Book, the
KJB. We heartily affirm that it is Gods best gift just as precious to Gods
people today as it was in 1611.
The KJB, unsullied by the pollution of modernism stands apart from
a hundred new English versions. It is without peer the most faithful
repository of Gods inspired Word, the bulwark of Protestantism, the
impregnable defence against ecumenical forces, proud banner of the
Sixteenth Century Reformation, the only Bible untainted by revisionist
poison.
We are keenly aware that the days wherein we may openly defend
the KJB are numbered. The adversary and enemy of the Word is about to
bring in the One World Church. The Head of the Church and self-styled
successor to the Apostle Peter has issued the order (Twelfth Encyclical,
May 1995): all churches are to return to mother church. The Bishop of
Rome, with power and authority, exercises primacy, i.e., supremacy,
over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy . . . ,
the Churchs mission, discipline and the Christian life. He will not look
with favour on our continued use of the KJB. A new Common Bible
will shortly appear, bearing the Popes imprimatur.
The present situation calls for courage and resolve to take a stand
for the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:9). The
fearless contender for the truthT T Shieldshas timely words for us
today:
13

I believe that there is nothing left to us but to declare war on modernism
everywhere. For myself, I have resigned from the diplomatic service and
joined the army in the field.
We are in danger of suffering great loss from the neutral attitude of many
who ought to be openly on the side of orthodoxy. There is no place for
neutrality in this war. He that is not for Christ is against Him.
Today, more than ever before, we need to be sure what Gods Word
says. Read 2 Peter 1:19-21,
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that
ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn,
and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of
the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in
old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved
by the Holy Ghost.
Heed the warning of Holy Scripture: To Israel, about to enter the

Land, God said, Now therefore hearken, O Israel, . . . Ye shall not add
unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought
from it (Deut 4:1, 2). For ever, O LORD, they word is settled in
heaven (Ps 119:89). Let no man attempt to unsettle it! Every word of
God is pure (Prov 30:5). Let no man contaminate it!
My heritage is a high and holy regard for Gods Word, and beyond a
shadow of doubt, that Word is given to us in the KJB.
14
5
A 21ST CENTURY REFORMATION MOVEMENT
FOR THE VERBAL AND PLENARY
PRESERVATION OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES
Jeffrey Khoo
The Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) remains a Bible-believing
and Bible-defending institution. The Burning Bush since 1997 has
defended the biblical doctrine of the verbal and plenary preservation of
Scripture from assaults made by anti-reformed and neo-fundamental
textual critics. As a confessional school, FEBC affirms its faith on a
forever infallible and inerrant Scriptures not just in the Autographs but
also the Apographs as spelt out in the Westminster Confession of Faith,
The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek
being immediately inspired by God, and, by his singular care and
providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.
The College Board and Faculty affirm the 100% inspiration and
100% preservation of the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35), and take this solemn oath in all sincerity
believing that the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth
upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it,
every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance
of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not
some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of
Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.
FEBC stands against modern textual criticism and the modern
perversions of the Scriptures that are based on the corrupt Westcott and
Hort Text by declaring univocally that the traditional Hebrew Masoretic
Text and Greek Textus Receptus underlying the King James Bible to be
the totally inspired and entirely preserved Word of God.
FEBC champions the International Council of Christian Churches
(ICCC) resolution on the preservation of Scripture passed at its 16th
15
World Congress in Jerusalem in the year 2000. The ICCC statement #11
affirmed, Believing the OT has been preserved in the Masoretic text and
the NT in the Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the complete Word
of God.
In an effort to undermine the Reformation doctrine of the verbal and
plenary preservation of Scripture, anti-preservationists and anti-KJVists
have concocted lies to cause confusion. What are these lies? Lie #1: that
the KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures. Lie
#2: that believers who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell. Let it
be known that FEBC holds to no such absurd views; never had, never
will! Propagators of such lies ought to cease and desist from
transgressing any further the 9th commandment.
Persecution came. The college was ordered to stop teaching the truth
of Gods 100% preservation of His Word and words. No one is to defend
it, not even to breathe a word about it; it is merely personal conviction
not dogma. But we respond in the spirit of Luther, If I profess with the
loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God
except precisely that little point that the world and the devil are at the
moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be
professing Christ. Where the battle rages is where the loyalty of the
soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is merely
flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.
Some say it is foolish faith to believe that God has indeed
preserved His Word to the jot and tittle, that we do certainly have all of
His words today. In reply, let me quote Luther, Unless you prove to me
by Scripture and plain reason that I am wrong, I cannot and will not
recant. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against
conscience is neither right nor safe [it endangers the soul]. Here I stand.
There is nothing else I can do. God help me. Amen. This is the logic of
faith (Heb 11:3, 6). He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matt 11:15).
FEBC stands by her Statement of Faith as written in her
Constitution, Article #4.
4. Statement of Faith
1.1
The Statement of Faith of the College shall be in accordance with
that system commonly called the Reformed Faith as expressed
in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic Westminster
Assembly together with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.
16
A 21st Century Reformation Movement
1.2
In abbreviated form, the chief tenets of the doctrine of the

College, apart from the Doctrinal Position Statement of the
College, shall be as follows:
1.2.1 We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs)
and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in
the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and
infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the supreme and
final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
1.2.1.1 We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New
Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be
the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant.
1.2.1.2 We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be the Word
of Godthe best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful
translation of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it
alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading,
preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.
1.2.1.3 The Board of Directors and Faculty shall affirm their allegiance
to the Word of God by taking the Dean Burgon Oath at every
annual convocation: I swear in the Name of the Triune God:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit that I believe the Bible is none other
than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of
it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every
syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct utterance of the Most
High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some
part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of
1.2.2 We believe in one God existing in three co-equal and co-eternal
Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Deut 6:4, 1 John 5:7).
1.2.3 We believe that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, was
conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and is true
God and true man in complete and direct fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14
(Matt 1:20-23, John 1:1, 14, Col 2:9).
1.2.4 We believe God created the whole universe ex nihilo (out of
nothing) by the Word of His mouth, and all very good, in the
space of six literal or natural days (Gen 1:1, Exod 20:11, Ps
148:5, John 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 11:3).
17
1.2.5
We believe that man was created in the image of God, but sinned
through the fall of Adam, thereby incurring not only physical
death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God and
that all human beings are born with a sinful nature and become
sinners in thought, word and deed (Gen 1:26-27, Rom 3:19-20,
5:12, 6:23).
1.2.6 We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died a propitiatory and
expiatory death as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice,
and that all who repent of their sins and believe in Him are
justified before God on the grounds of His shed blood (Rom 5:811, 1 John 2:2, 1 Pet 1:18-19).
1.2.7 We believe in the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, in
His ascension into Heaven, and in His exaltation at the right hand
of God, where He intercedes for us as our High Priest and
Advocate (1 Cor 15:1-4, 15-19, Phil 2:9-11, Heb 3:1, 4:14-16).
1.2.8 We believe in the personal, visible and premillennial return of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to judge this world, restore His
chosen nation Israel to greatness, and bring peace to the nations
as King of kings and Lord of lords (Jer 3:17, Zech 14:9, Acts 1:6,
Rom 11:26, Rev 20:1-7).
1.2.9 We believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone, not by
works, and that all who repent and receive the Lord Jesus Christ
as their personal Saviour are born again by the Holy Spirit and
thereby become the children of God (Rom 5:1, 8:14-16, Eph 2:810, 1 Tim 2:5, Tit 3:5).
1.2.10 We believe that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the
Lord Jesus Christ and to convict and regenerate the sinner, and
indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living
and service (John 16:7-14, Rom 8:1-2).
1.2.11 We believe that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism for
believers and their children and the Sacrament of the Lords
Supper, which sacraments shall be observed by His Church till He
comes (Matt 28:19, 1 Cor 11:23-26).
1.2.12 We believe in the eternal security, bodily resurrection and eternal
blessedness of the saved, and in the bodily resurrection and
eternal conscious punishment of the lost (John 10:27-29, 1 Cor
15:51-53, 1 Thess 4:13-18, Rev 20:11-15).
18
A 21st Century Reformation Movement
1.2.13 We believe in the real, spiritual unity in Christ of all redeemed by

His precious blood and the necessity of faithfully maintaining the
purity of the Church in doctrine and life according to the Word of
God, and the principle and practice of biblical separation from the
apostasy of the day being spearheaded by the ecumenical
movement, charismatic movement and other false movements that
contradict the Holy Scriptures and the Historic Christian Faith (2
Cor 6:14-7:1, Jude 3, Rev 18:4).
By the grace of God, FEBC will remain true to its fundamentalist
ethos, earnestly contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints,
to the glory of God until Christ returns. Amen.
19
6
IS THE PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE A
DOCTRINE WORTH DYING FOR?
Michael Koech
Faith and the Bible
Jesus said, Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown
of life (Rev 2:10).1
The Christian Faith is founded upon the Holy Scriptures. God gave
the Church a library of 66 books as His Sacred Word. The Holy Bible
comprising the Old and New Testaments was written by more than 40
authors over a period of 1,500 years in three different languages. Christ is
the preeminent person in the Bible. His name occurs no less than 770
times. Christians live by this Book. When believers are baptised and are
received into church membership, they are expected to believe that the
Bible is the very Word of God and the words therein are perfect and true.
Inspiration and Preservation

Since the Lord has given us these Scriptures by divine inspiration (2
Tim 3:16), it follows that they must be divinely preserved if they are to
accomplish their intended purpose throughout the ages. The Lord Jesus
Christ made a promise to this effect, For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18). This is the classic text on the
preservation of the Bible for it extends to the minute details of the letters
of the Hebrew alphabet. He also said, Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke
21:33). These and other references show us that the doctrine of
preservation has been there since the Bible was written. Unfortunately it
is absent in modern theological books. Nevertheless, there are sufficient
evidences to show that Protestant and Reformed theology has always
believed in the special providential preservation of the Bible.
20
Is the Preservation of Scripture a Doctrine Worth Dying For?
Thomas Watson in his bookA Body of Divinityfirst published in

1672, said this about Biblical preservation:
We may know the Scripture to be the Word of God by its miraculous
preservation in all ages. The holy Scriptures are the richest jewel that Christ
has left us; and the church of God has so kept these public records of
heaven, that they have not been lost. The Word of God has never wanted
enemies to oppose, and, if possible, to extirpate it. They have given out a
law concerning Scripture, as Pharaoh did the midwives, concerning the
Hebrew womens children, to strangle it in the birth; but God has preserved
this blessed Book inviolable to this day. The devil and his agents have been
blowing at Scripture light, but could never blow it out; a clear sign that it
was lighted from heaven. Nor has the church of God, in all revolutions and
changes, kept the Scripture that it should not be lost only, but that it should
not be depraved. The letter of Scripture has been preserved, without any
corruption, in the original tongue. The Scriptures were not corrupted before
Christs time, for then Christ would not have sent the Jews to them. He said,
Search the Scriptures. He knew these sacred springs were not muddied
with human fancies.2
It is noted that in this paragraph, Watson used the word preserve

or preservation three times. The inerrancy of the Bible is commonly
held by true believers, and it must be added that the Bible is inerrant
precisely because it has been preserved. As it exists today in many human
languages it was divinely inspired in the original autographs, and then
divinely preserved in the apographs or copies in the original languages.
For centuries these were copied by hand until the invention of the
printing press, which coincided with the global movement of the
Protestant Reformation. By Gods special providence the Scriptures have
been supernaturally preserved and passed down from generation to
generation in the copies.
Translations
When the church was revived after the darkness of the Middle Ages,
Christians began to see the need for translating the Bible into different
languages so that all could read the Bible for themselves. This was the
position taken by the Westminster Confession of Faith. So while the
drafters of the Confession believed in divine inspiration and Gods
particular care and providence to keep the inspired words pure, they also
believed that translations could convey the truth of the original. When
they penned the statement they did not foresee the controversy that would
21
arise many years later. But as truth does not change, their words are
relevant today as they were when they were first written. A modern
author has added his voice to this doctrine with these words,
God gave His word in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. God preserved the
Bible down through the centuries through dedicated copyists who
meticulously copied it by hand. Gods Word was preserved both in
manuscript form and in the early commentaries on the Bible. Further, the
Bible was preserved through its translation into the languages of the
common people. Thus today people over much of the globe have the
wonderful privilege of reading with understanding Gods Word to
mankind.3
Declaring and Defending Preservation

As the controversy over the doctrine of special providential
preservation of the Scriptures has resurfaced in theological circles, it is
worth noting the latest developments, and where necessary, make
adjustments and corrections to past shortcomings and oversights. It has
also been observed that the voluminous works of many recent theological
heavyweights say little or nothing at all about the doctrine of Bible
preservation. It is therefore a task for the present generation to state with
clarity the biblical position of this doctrine and defend it for the benefit
of the Church present and future. Taking the lead, the principal of the Far
Eastern Bible College (FEBC) has made this statement of faith,
We believe the preservation of Holy Scripture and its Divine inspiration
stand in the same position as providence and creation. If Deism teaches a
Creator who goes to sleep after creating the world is absurd, to hold to the
doctrine of inspiration without preservation is equally illogical. Without
preservation, all inspiration, God-breathing into scripture would be lost. But
we have a Bible so pure and powerful in every word and it is so because
God preserved it down through the ages.4
FEBCs stand on the 100% perfect preservation of Scripture is beginning

to yield fruits.
This discovery is a challenge to the present generation as the
discovery of the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to Luther and
his contemporaries. The doctrine has always been there but has been kept
on the shelves. It has to be publicised and taught to everyone. When
Hilkiah the priest found the book of the Law in the Lords house he gave
it to Shaphan the scribe who in turn took it and read it before King Josiah
(2 Chron 34:15-18). This marked the beginning of Josiahs reforms that
22
brought great spiritual revival to Judah in days of apostasy. In the same

manner, proclaiming and publishing the doctrine of the preservation of
the Bible may be the beginning of greater things for the church in the
days to come.
Truth Determines Scholarship

The doctrine of Bible preservation may not go down well with many
scholars who deny that there is such a doctrine. There is also a tendency
of citing big names in theological circles, and making them the final
authority instead of the Bible. But if the Bible teaches the special
providential preservation of the Scriptures, no human being can destroy
it. Biblical truth does not depend on historical treatment by men but by
what God says about it in His forever infallible and inerrant Word.
Defenders of Gods Truth may suffer persecution, but there must be no
surrender by way of compromise or retraction of what is biblically true.
Since the doctrine of biblical preservation has much to do with faith, it
may be ridiculed as unscholarly especially by those who wish to indulge
in textual criticism. But it must be remembered that it is not scholarship
that determines Truth, but Truth determines scholarship.
Opposition and Persecution

Christian doctrines or dogma are those principles of faith that
constitute what is believed and practised by the Christian Church. They
come from an authoritative source, namely, the Bible. There is much we
can learn about a Christians commitment to dogma from the Apostle
Paul who was persecuted for preaching Christ as the Son of God and the
Messiah, and the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead (Acts 23:6).
He is an example in the believers commitment to doctrine. He went
through great suffering and was subsequently martyred for the defence of
the faith. Tradition tells us that the rest of the Apostles likewise died a
martyrs death. They stood firm in their faith in Christ despite great
opposition and persecution.
In Church history we have the example of Polycarp who stood firm
for his Lord. When he was compelled to deny Christ and to worship
Caesar as God, he refused and paid for it with his life. Here is his story:
The usual test applied to Christians was that they must call Caesar, the
emperor, Lord, as if he were a divine person. Refusal to do so meant the
death sentence. Taken before the Roman consul, Polycarp was required to
23

say, on oath, that he venerated Caesar in this way. But he was firm in his
refusal. I have wild beasts said the consul; if you refuse I will throw you
to them. Send for them replied Polycarp. If you despise the wild beasts I
will send you to the fire, said the consul; swear and I will release you:
curse the Christ. Eighty and six years have I served Christ replied
Polycarp, and he has done me no wrong; how then can I blaspheme my
King who has saved me? You threaten the fire that burns for an hour and
then is quenched; but you know not of the fire of the judgment to come, and
the fire of the eternal punishment. Bring what you will. The consul was
astonished and sent a herald to announce to the people that Polycarp had
confessed himself to be a Christian. When the torch was applied to the
wood, and smoke and flames encircled him, again he prayed: Lord God,
Father of our blessed Saviour, I thank thee that I have been deemed worthy
to receive the crown of martyrdom, and that I may die for thee and for thy
cause. It is recorded that all the multitude marvelled at the great difference
between the unbelievers and the elect. They saw what Christian obedience
meant, for Jesus had said, Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a
crown of life (Rev 2:10).5
Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, and was a pastor of the
church in Smyrna. He believed that his faith in Christ was worth dying
for even when all people were against it. He had the determination to
stand alone for Christ. He met his death in AD 150. Countless other
Christians through history have suffered the same fate, but they knew that
what they believed was worth dying for. This is illustrated by the above
testimony of Polycarp when he showed that the fire he was about to face
was nothing compared to eternal fire of Gods punishment that all
unbelievers would one day face.
No Compromise
As the early Christians stood and died for what they believed, such a
stand is still needful today. Today, there are Christian martyrs in countries
that are antagonistic to Christianity. Christians are holding on to their
faith despite the persecution they face for it is a faith worth dying for. A
believers commitment to His Lord and His Word cannot be
compromised for anything. The doctrine of Bible preservation is a
fundamental doctrine of the Bible, a foundational truth that we cannot
deny. It is a doctrine worth dying for!
24
Notes
Not in the sense of terrorism, for terrorism is evil and criminal, and must
be condemned.
2
Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth and
Trust, reprint 1965), 27.
3
Michael C Bere, Bible Doctrines for Today (Pensacola: A Beka Book,
1996), 75.
4
Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, A Theology for Every Christian: Knowing
God and His Word (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1998), 47.
5
S M Houghton, Sketches from Church History (Edinburgh: Banner of
Truth, 1980), 18.
1
25
7
FEBC FACULTY UNITED ON VERBAL PLENARY
PRESERVATION (VPP)
The original statement of the Bible-Presbyterian (BP) Church on the
Holy Scriptures as stated in the constitution of many BP churches today
reads, We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and
infallibility, and as the Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in
faith and life (Article 4.2.1). Article 4.2.1 does not explicitly state or
identify the Holy Scriptures in which we regard as the inspired, infallible
and inerrant Word of God except that it is the Scriptures in the original
languages. This was because when the BP Church in Singapore was
founded in 1950, the humble, God-fearing leaders of the Church
generally understood the Reformed and Protestant doctrine of Holy
Scripture, and there was no need to express more than that which is
contained in the wording of the Constitution. It ought also to be noted
that the attack on Scripture in those days concerned the Scriptures
inspiration and not preservation. However, in this modern age of
confusion over the nature and identity of the Holy Scriptures, the FEBC
found it necessary to state in no uncertain terms what it believes to be the
Holy Scriptures, 100% inspired and 100% preserved to the jot and tittle
(Matt 5:18).
On February 27, 2007, the lecturers and tutors of the Far Eastern
Bible College (FEBC) reaffirmed unanimously their commitment to the
Statement of Faith drafted and approved by the Board of Directors and
the Theological Faculty in 2003. Articles 4.2.1, and 4.2.1.1/2/3 of the
Statement of Faith as contained in the FEBC Constitution read:
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
26
FEBC Faculty United on Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to
be the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant.
translation of the Bible in the English language, and do
employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public
reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.
4.2.1.3 The Board of Directors and Faculty shall affirm their
allegiance to the Word of God by taking the Dean Burgon
Oath at every annual convocation: I swear in the Name of
the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit that I believe
the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth
upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every
verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of
it, is direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none
other than the Word of God, not some part of it more, some
part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth
upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.
Not only the FEBC, but the International Council of Christian
Churches (ICCC) in 1998 and 2000, the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS)
in 2005, and the Dean Burgon Society (DBS) have all found it necessary
to state clearly the nature and identity of the Holy Scriptures that we have
in our hands today.1 FEBC stands with them in their affirmation of the
present infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, and the
identification of the divinely preserved texts to be the Hebrew Masoretic
Text and the Greek Textus Receptus.
We hereby beseech all Bible-believing Christians to affirm and
defend the Biblical doctrines of the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI)
and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures in the
Traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus
on which the Reformation Bible, the King James Bible, is based.
FEBC Constitution Article 4: Statement of Faith

4.1
The Statement of Faith of the College shall be in accordance with

that system commonly called the Reformed Faith as expressed
in the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic Westminster
27
4.2
In abbreviated form, the chief tenets of the doctrine of the

College, apart from the Doctrinal Position Statement of the
College, shall be as follows:
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
4.2.2 We believe in one God existing in three co-equal and co-eternal
Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Deut 6:4, 1 John 5:7).
4.2.3 We believe that Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, was
conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and is true
God and true man in complete and direct fulfilment of Isaiah 7:14
(Matt 1:20-23, John 1:1, 14, Col 2:9).
4.2.4 We believe God created the whole universe ex nihilo (out of
nothing) by the Word of His mouth, and all very good, in the
space of six literal or natural days (Gen 1:1, Exod 20:11, Ps
148:5, John 1:3, Col 1:16, Heb 11:3).
28
FEBC Faculty United on Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
4.2.5
We believe that man was created in the image of God, but sinned
through the fall of Adam, thereby incurring not only physical
death but also spiritual death, which is separation from God and
that all human beings are born with a sinful nature and become
sinners in thought, word and deed (Gen 1:26-27, Rom 3:19-20,
5:12, 6:23).
4.2.6 We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died a propitiatory and
expiatory death as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice,
and that all who repent of their sins and believe in Him are
justified before God on the grounds of His shed blood (Rom 5:811, 1 John 2:2, 1 Pet 1:18-19).
4.2.7 We believe in the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, in
His ascension into Heaven, and in His exaltation at the right hand
of God, where He intercedes for us as our High Priest and
Advocate (1 Cor 15:1-4, 15-19, Phil 2:9-11, Heb 3:1, 4:14-16).
4.2.8 We believe in the personal, visible and premillennial return of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to judge this world, restore His
chosen nation Israel to greatness, and bring peace to the nations
as King of kings and Lord of lords (Jer 3:17, Zech 14:9, Acts 1:6,
Rom 11:26, Rev 20:1-7).
4.2.9 We believe that salvation is by grace through faith alone, not by
works, and that all who repent and receive the Lord Jesus Christ
as their personal Saviour are born again by the Holy Spirit and
thereby become the children of God (Rom 5:1, 8:14-16, Eph 2:810, 1 Tim 2:5, Tit 3:5).
4.2.10 We believe that the ministry of the Holy Spirit is to glorify the
Lord Jesus Christ and to convict and regenerate the sinner, and
indwell, guide, instruct and empower the believer for godly living
and service (John 16:7-14, Rom 8:1-2).
4.2.11 We believe that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism for
believers and their children and the Sacrament of the Lords
Supper, which sacraments shall be observed by His Church till He
comes (Matt 28:19, 1 Cor 11:23-26).
4.2.12 We believe in the eternal security, bodily resurrection and eternal
blessedness of the saved, and in the bodily resurrection and
eternal conscious punishment of the lost (John 10:27-29, 1 Cor
15:51-53, 1 Thess 4:13-18, Rev 20:11-15).
29
4.2.13 We believe in the real, spiritual unity in Christ of all redeemed by

His precious blood and the necessity of faithfully maintaining the
purity of the Church in doctrine and life according to the Word of
God, and the principle and practice of biblical separation from the
apostasy of the day being spearheaded by the ecumenical
movement, charismatic movement and other false movements that
contradict the Holy Scriptures and the Historic Christian Faith (2
Cor 6:14-7:1, Jude 3, Rev 18:4).
Notes
See ICCC, TBS, and DBS statements as published in The Burning Bush
(July 2006): 72-73, and The Burning Bush (January 2007): 36-39.
1
30
PART II
Theologia
31
8
MY GLORY WILL I NOT GIVE TO ANOTHER
(ISAIAH 42:8)
Timothy Tow
The Lord God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, declares, I
am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another
(Isa 42:8). Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his
wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich
man glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise
lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these
things I delight, saith the LORD (Jer 9:23-24).
All glory belongs to Him who created us. Let it be said again, I am
the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another. Let
the creature be humbled to the dust and whatsoever he speaks of the
Creator, let Him receive all the power and the glory.
He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that
seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness
is in him (John 7:18). This is what our Lord Jesus, the Son of God,
observes in puny man who exalts himself above his Creator, but the Son
always glorifies the Father.
David, a man after His own heart, was so zealous for Gods glory
that he swore to the limit of his strength to fight Gods enemy, Do not I
hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that
rise up against thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred: I count them mine
enemies (Ps 139:21-22). David was a man after His own heart. He is
one that loved His God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with
all his mind (Matt 22:37). Are you one who loves his God like King
David? You will consequently hate with a holy hatred all that His enemy
plots against Him.
There is one hidden hatred of puny man against his Creator when he
speaks against His Word that it is not perfect. In so doing, puny man is
32
My Glory Will I Not Give to Another (Isaiah 42:8)
asserting himself and seeking glory for himself over his God. That is
Jesus observation in John 7:18 against the scholastic scribes and
Pharisees, his sworn enemies. But by faith, yes by faith, for without
faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must
believe that he is (God), and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently
seek him (in His Word) (Heb 11:6). We have upheld the unchanging
faith that Gods Word is 100% perfect without any mistake from the time
it was given to this day.
Does puny man know that:
(1) Thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name (Ps 138:2);
(2) Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy
righteous judgements endureth for ever (Ps 119:160);
(3) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33);
(4) For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt
5:18);
(5) The scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35);
(6) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works (2 Tim 3:16-17);
(7) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace
of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Ps 12:6-7)?
33
9
THREE HEAVEN AND EARTH MOVING STATEMENTS
FROM GODS MOUTH SETTLE THE QUESTION
WHETHER HIS WORDS ARE PRESERVED
Timothy Tow
Our Lord Jesus Christ declared three times in Matthew 24:35,
Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33 the same words, Heaven and earth shall
pass away, but my words shall not pass away. This settles the question
whether His Words are preserved or not. Scholars who miss this
statement but argue from other angles are missing the woods for the trees.
If Jesus guarantees that His Words will remain longer than heaven and
earth which He has created, its preservation will last longer than the
creation.
Two instances in the Bible will illustrate our point. After God had
written the Ten Commandments on two tablets of stone, Moses broke
them in anger when he came down from the Mount and saw the children
of Israel worshipping instead a golden calf they had made. Then God said
to Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will
write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou
brakest (Exod 34:1).
The second instance is recorded in Jeremiah Chapter 36. God
told Jeremiah to write in a book words that He had spoken to him against
Israel and Judah and all nations. Then Jeremiah called Baruch, his
secretary, to write in a book Jeremiahs words from the Lord and read
them to King Jehoiakim and all in the LORDs house. When the king
heard it, he cut up the book with a pen knife and burnt it. But Gods
Words came to Jeremiah after all the words that were in the first roll had
been burnt by King Jehoiakim. Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave
it to Baruch who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the
former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim, king of Judah,
had burned in the fire; and there were added besides unto them many like
words. Gods Words cannot be broken (John 10:35) but only be
preserved.
34
10
GODS SPECIAL PROVIDENTIAL CARE OF THE
TEXT OF SCRIPTURE
Timothy Tow
There are two accounts recorded by Moses on the giving of the Ten
Commandments. The first is in Exodus 19:16-21:26; 31:18-32:28; 34:1-4.
The second is recorded in Deuteronomy 5:1-29; 9:10-21; 10:1-5.
Deuteronomy means second giving of the Law. Deuteronomy is Moses
instruction to the children of Israel at the end of his life and of what
greater importance is the giving of the Ten Commandments? For brevity,
I have chosen to discuss from Deuteronomy and not Exodus.
The delivery of the Ten Commandments was made on the top of
Mount Sinai, over 7,000 feet above sea level. The whole process took
forty days and forty nights, amidst thunder and lightning, fire and smoke,
the blowing of trumpet and the voice of Almighty God speaking to men.
Then God wrote the sentences of the Ten Commandments with His own
finger over the two tablets, front and back. In the climax of the forty days
and nights, rebellion to Gods promulgation of the Ten Commandments
arose from the ground. The people had made a golden calf to substitute
for Jehovah saying this was their god, whereupon Moses wrath was
kindled. When he was confronted by this golden calf, he became so angry
that he threw the two tablets of law to the ground. Symbolically, Gods
Commandments were broken. The golden calf the children of Israel had
made was ground into fine powder and mixed with water for Israel to
drink, which was their punishment. Can puny man rebel against Gods
Word with impunity?
To re-establish the giving of the Law, God commanded Moses to
hew another two tablets of stone and bring them with him back to the
mountain top. And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing,
the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount
out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD
gave them unto me. And I turned myself and came down from the mount,
35
and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the
LORD commanded me (Deuteronomy 10:4-5).
The Ark of the Covenant is the only holy furniture kept inside the
Holy of Holies. Gods sacred commandments, intact and written on both
sides of the two tablets so nothing can be added and nothing can be
subtracted, were kept secure from any human intrusion. For ever, O
LORD, thy word is settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89).
The restoration of the two tables is to show that heaven and earth
shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Not one letter or even
the cross of a t, and the dot of an i. For verily I say unto you, Till
law. Jesus says, The scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
To doubly confirm that heaven and earth shall pass away but Gods
words shall not pass away, we have the record in Jeremiah 36 of how the
prophet asked his secretary Baruch to write words of condemnation
against the House of Judah and caused them to be read to Judah. When
the roll Jeremiah dictated to Baruch was read before Jehoiakim, king of
Judah, he cut it up and burned it wholly in the fire. Did Gods Word
become ashes? God told Jeremiah to repeat His Words to be written by
Baruch again and add more words for the punishment of King Jehoiakim.
Can puny man rebel against Gods Word with impunity?
This leads us to the doctrine of Gods special providential care of
the text of Scripture. This is affirmed by the Westminster Confession. It
states that the Scripture is kept pure in all ages. This is doubly attested
by David in Psalm 12:6-7, The words of the LORD are pure words: as
silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The doctrine of the special providential care of the text of Scripture,
however, is denied by even some fundamentalist scholars. Dr. Carl
McIntire has this commentary to make: What is interesting about all this
is that, in talking about the mighty acts of God and trying to make out of
our God a great and powerful God, they have produced for us a God who
is unable to give us a record that is true! They believe in the infallibility
and inerrancy only in the autographs, but not in the subsequent copies.
We believe the Textus Receptus (Received Text) upon which the
KJV is based, is preserved intact for the church so that we can say we
have the Word of God in our hands. But those versions that are based on
36
Gods Special Providential Care of the Text of Scripture
Westcott and Hort who supplant with their corrupt text have made
changes and deletions in 9,900 places in the New International Version
(NIV). The text underlying NIV is not as the Westminster Confession
says, Kept pure in all ages. God has preserved for us a pure Bible as He
preserved the Ten Commandments for us to this day. Let me say it again,
it is the Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based.
37
11
THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD
Jeffrey Khoo
God is in control because He is still on the throne.
What is Providence? Providence is all about God and His Creation.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (5.1), states, God the great Creator
of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures,
actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise
and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the
free immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His
wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
In other words, providence is Gods care of His creation and control
over the affairs of man in high and low places, in small things and big
things, so that whatever happens on earth and in history would ultimately
fulfil His predetermined plan and glorify His Holy Name.
Providence simply tells us that God is in control because He is still
on the throne. God is Cosmic Overseer and Supervisor. Nothing escapes
Him, nothing happens by chance. There is no such thing as luck. Do not
thank your lucky stars!
Where do we see Gods providential hand at work? We see it in His
providential (1) maintenance of His Creation, (2) protection of His
people, and (3) preservation of His words.
Gods Providential Maintenance of His Creation

Deism teaches that God, after He created the universe, got so tired
that He took a long nap and never woke up. He is no longer in control or
taking care of the universe He had created. Such a philosophy mocks God
and is heretical. The Bible teaches an omnipotent God who is still very
much alive and awake, and very much in control. The Psalmist wrote,
Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they
were created. He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath
made a decree which shall not pass (Ps 148:5-6); Who covereth the
38
The Providence of God
heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass
to grow upon the mountains. He giveth to the beast his food, and to the
young ravens which cry (Ps 147:8-9). The God who made the heavens
and the earth continues to sustain His creation and His creatures.
Consider the fact that planet earth is hanging on nothing, suspended
in thin air, and moving around the sun. Why does it not drop off the sky,
or stray off course from its orbit? Is it not amazing that the earth rotates
on its axis every 24 hours at a speed of 1,000 miles an hour, revolves
around the sun once a year at a speed of 66,660 miles per hour, and yet
stays on course? The earth is not like an uncontrolled spinning top. God
is in control. He not only causes the earth to spin, but also controls its
movement. The earth would either freeze or fry if it were just a fraction
off course in relation to its distance from the sun.
We echo the words of Isaac Watts:
Jesus shall reign where-eer the sun
Does his successive journeys run,
His kingdom spread from shore to shore
Till moons shall wax and wane no more.
Is not Gods providential maintenance of His creation perfect?
Gods Providential Protection of His People

As Christians we are the most happy people on earth. This is so
because we have a Father in heaven who takes meticulous care of all our
needs. Your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask
him Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put
on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the
fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into
barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better
than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his
stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say
unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of
these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is,
and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O
ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat?
or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after
all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth
39
that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of
God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you
(Matt 6:8, 25-33).
God assures His people that all things work together for good to
them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose
(Rom 8:28). God knows the future. God knows what is good for us. Even
when evil (illness, accidents, bereavement, retrenchment, failure, etc.)
befall us, He knows how to work things out for us. He only asks that we
love and trust Him 100%.
Heres a story of Gods providential caretaking of His servant
Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
C. H. Spurgeon once had a singular experience. He had been out in
the country to preach, and, when travelling back to London, suddenly
found that he had lost his railway ticket. A gentleman, the only other
occupant of the compartment, noticing that he was fumbling about in his
pocket, said, I hope you have not lost anything, sir? Spurgeon thanked
him, and told him that he had lost his ticket, and that by a remarkable
coincidence he had neither watch nor money with him. But, added
Spurgeon, I am not at all troubled, for I have been on my Masters
business, and I am quite sure all will be well. I have had so many
interpositions of divine Providence, in small matters as well as great ones
that I feel as if, whatever happens to me, I am bound to fall on my feet.
The gentleman seemed interested, and said that no doubt all would be
right. When the ticket collector came to the compartment, he seemingly
greeted Spurgeons companion with much respect, who simply said to
him, All right, William, whereupon the ticket collector again greeted
him and left. After he had gone, Spurgeon said to the gentleman, It is
very strange that the collector did not ask for my ticket. No, Mr
Spurgeon, he replied, addressing him by name for the first time, it is
only another illustration of what you told me about the Providence of
God watching over you, even in small matters; I am the general manager
of the line, and it was no doubt divinely arranged that I should be your
companion just when I could be of service to you.
Nothing at all can separate us from the love God has for us (Rom
8:38, 39). He will take care of us as He promised. So, why worry?
Only trust Him, only trust Him, only trust Him now;
He will save you, He will save you, He will save you now.
40
The Providence of God
Gods Providential Preservation of His Words

Jesus quoting Deut 8:3 said, Man shall not live by bread alone, but
by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Matt 4:4).
Every word of Holy Writ is vital for godly living. As such, God makes
sure that every single one of His words is preserved by His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages as stated in the Westminster
Confession of Faith (1.8). This is in keeping with Gods promise to
preserve His words even to the jot and tittle, The words of the LORD
are pure words: as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
this generation for ever (Ps 12:6-7). For verily I say unto you, Till
law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18). Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke
21:33).
Gods providential hand in the preservation of His inspired words is
seen in the canonisation and transmission of Scripture. All the inspired
NT books were completed by the end of the first century when the
Apostle John wrote the last book of Revelation, and God warned against
adding to or subtracting from His Word in Rev 22:18-19. However, we
know that in the first few centuries, there were heretical men who penned
spurious writings and passed them off as Scripture. Some of these were
the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Epistle of Barnabas,
etc. Nevertheless, none of the inspired books of Scripture have been lost
or obscured in the canonical process. By the providential guidance of the
Holy Spirit, Gods people were led to identify the 27 inspired books of
the Biblical Canon, no more, no less. There was a terminus to the
canonisation of Scripture at the Council of Carthage in AD 397.
In like manner, the Lord allowed copyist errors to enter into the
transmission process through the pen of fallible scribes. Nevertheless,
His providential hand kept His inspired words of Scripture from being
lost or corrupted. In light of Gods providence that nothing happens by
chance and that history is under His sovereign control, in the fullness of
timein the most opportune time of the Reformationwhen the true
church separated from the false, when the study of the original languages
was emphasised, and the printing press invented (which meant that no
longer would there be any need to hand-copy the Scriptures thereby
41
ensuring a uniform text)God restored from out of a pure stream of

preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the purest of all Hebrew and
Greek textsthe texts that underlie our King James Biblethat
accurately reflect the original autographs.
The same powerful God who inspired His words to the jot and tittle,
is He not powerful enough to preserve His inspired words in like manner?
If Gods providential keeping of His creation and His people is nothing
short of perfect, how then can the providential preservation of His very
own words be anything but perfect? Yea, let God be true, but every man
a liar (Rom 3:4). As God is immutable, so is His Word. The Law of the
LORD is perfect, converting the soul (Ps 19:7). We not only have all the
doctrines but also all the words of Holy Scripture.
The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
Midst the ranging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.
The Bible stands though the hills may tumble,
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.
What a powerful and wonderful God we have! He is in control! He

is still on the throne! Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for
ever! Glory to His Name!
42
12
SEVEN BIBLICAL AXIOMS IN ASCERTAINING
THE AUTHENTIC AND AUTHORITATIVE TEXTS
OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES
Jeffrey Khoo
Introduction
Which Bible?1 This question raised by Dr David Otis Fuller in 1970
when he published his book by that title remains a pertinent question.
There are over a hundred modern versions of the Bible and over 5000
Greek manuscripts today. The scholars are telling us, No two
manuscripts are alike. We are told that we do not have the inspired
originals, the autographs have long perished. What we have today are
copies of the copies of the copies of the autographs. And the over
5000 copies we have today are full of errors; there are hundreds and
thousands of mistakes they say.2 Evangelicals today who have embraced
such a view of Scripture are telling us that the Bible was only infallible
and inerrant in the pastin the beginning, but it is not so infallible and
inerrant today. This can be applied to the Bible texts and versions as well.
No two are the same. In fact, some read very differently. They have
caused a whole lot of confusion in the Church. Where is Gods Word?
Which one is Gods Word? Do we have a clear and certain answer? Do
we have a more sure word of prophecy (2 Pet 1:19)?
Does the answer come from the textual scholars and their
rationalistic rules of textual criticism? The answer is no! These critics
and their conjectures have only brought us to a dead end of unbelief and
uncertainty. I have been schooled by such textual critics and learned their
textual critical rules when I was in seminary. I might appear very
scholarly when I use them, but ultimately I have found them to be
incompatible with biblical faith and doctrine. Instead of building up my
faith in Gods Word, they cause me to question and doubt the words of
God. Do we really have all the words of God today? I found that I could
not affirm the present perfection of Gods words through textual
43
criticism. It is impossible to identify Gods words through such critical

methods and rationalistic presuppositions. The true biblical scholar
should be Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor 10:5).
What we need are God-given principles and not man-made rules in
our identification of the authentic and authoritative Scriptures the Lord
had inspired and preserved. Allow me to submit to you seven biblical
axioms which would guide us in our thinking and determination of what
are precisely the authentic and authoritative source texts of Holy
Scripture.
Epangelical Axiom
God has promised many things to His people, and one of the most
important promises besides the promise of salvation is the promise of
Scripture, that His inspired words once given will be forever preserved.
We know this from Psalm 12:6, 7, The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation
for ever.
Those who deny that the Bible teaches preservation are wont to
disagree, saying that verse 7 refers to the preservation of His people, not
His words. They say that verse 7 points back to the people of verse 5, but
the switch from the first singular pronoun I in verse 5 and second
singular pronoun Thou in verse 7 could indicate a shift in thought, from
the preservation of people in verse 5, to the preservation of words in
verse 7. We do not doubt at all that God has promised to preserve His
people, but I believe by a synonymous parallelism, the author in verse 7
was thinking of the preservation of the words that he had just declared as
perfectly pure and purified in verse 6. Note that not just the pronouns for
God do not agree, I in verse 5 and Thou in verse 7, the pronouns
used with reference to the objects of preservation also disagree, it is
him in verse 5 and them in verse 7. Now, him in verse 5 is in
italics, ie the pronoun is supplied and is not in the original. Why did the
King James translators not use the pronoun them but him? It is
possible that the King James translators did so to distinguish between the
people and the words, to show that verse 7 must naturally follow verse 6
and not verse 5, and that the preservation of them refers to the words
44
Seven Biblical Axioms
that were mentioned in the previous verse, Gods promise to protect

him (the poor and the needy in verse 5) notwithstanding.3
It is significant to note that Dr Carl McIntire the founding pastor of
the historic Bible Presbyterian Church in Collingswood understood verse
7 to mean the preservation of the divinely inspired words of God. In a
sermon he preached in 1992, entitled Help, LORD!, from Psalm 12, he
said,
Now come verse 6, The words of the LORD are pure words, not one of
them is mistaken, as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven
times. All the dregs are out. Here is a marvelous affirmation and
vindication that Gods Word is perfect. Now, The words of the LORD
are pure words. And then verse 7, how I love this: Thou shalt keep them O
LORD, that is, keep His words; thou shalt preserve them from this
generation forever. No matter what happens, one generation comes and
another passes away, God is going to preserve His words from one
generation to another. The words of God will be preserved throughout all
the generations.4
Another clear text that proves the doctrine of biblical preservation is

Matthew 5:18 where Jesus said, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till
all be fulfilled. This was the proof text cited by the Westminster
theologians when they stated their belief in the extraordinary providence
involved in the verbal and plenary preservation of Gods Word. The
Westminster Confession of Faith (1:8) states, The Old Testament in
Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek being immediately
inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in
all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion,
the Church is finally to appeal unto them.5 The Helvetic Consensus
Formula likewise affirmed,
God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word, which is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Rom. 1:16),
committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but has also
watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to
the present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud
of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and
goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a sure word
of prophecy and Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), from which, though
heaven and earth perish, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass (Matt.
5:18).6
45
Thus, we believe in Gods promiseevery word is preserved, no

word to the last letter and syllable is lost. We believe God is Truth and
truthful. 2 Corinthians 1:20 says, For all the promises of God in him are
yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. We believe God
kept His promise to preserve all of His inspired words.
Linguistic Axiom
The inspired words that God has preserved are the original language
words of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The divinely inspired
(theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16) Scriptures are the Hebrew/Aramaic Old
Testament and the Greek New Testament. Strictly speaking, the divinely
inspired or breathed-out words are not the translated words but the
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words originally penned by Moses, the
Prophets, and the Apostles. The sole, supreme, and final authority of the
Christian Faith rests upon these very words of God in the original
languages, not any other foreign language words be they English,
Chinese, Spanish, Korean, etc. Although the King James Version is a
most blessed translation of the Bible in the English language being very
faithful and true to the inspired original language texts, it is not an
inspired translation, and not superior to its underlying Hebrew and
Greek texts.
The Dean Burgon Society is clear in its position as regards the
verbal and plenary inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures as
found in the Traditional and Reformation texts as spelled out in its
Articles of Faith II.A,
II. ARTICLES OF FAITH
Acknowledging the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible, plenarily and
verbally inspired Word of God, among other equally Biblical truths, we
believe and maintain the following:
A. THE BIBLE. We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the
sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis
to Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility
and inerrancy in all matters of which they speak (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2
Peter 1:21; 1 Thessalonians 2:13). The books known as the Apocrypha,
however, are not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. As the
Bible uses it, the term inspiration refers to the writings, not the writers (2
Timothy 3:16-17); the writers are spoken of as being holy men of God
who were moved, carried or borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter
1:21) in such a definite way that their writings were supernaturally,
46

plenarily, and verbally inspired, free from any error, infallible, and inerrant,
as no other writings have ever been or ever will be inspired.
We believe that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of
the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament,
and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King
James Version (as found in The Greek Text Underlying The English
Authorized Version of 1611).
We believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the
English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two
providentially preserved Texts, which in our time has no equal among all of
the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their
translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorized Version
of 1611 and say This is the WORD OF GOD! while at the same time
realizing that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original
language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with
Scripture.
We believe that all the verses in the King James Version belong in the Old
and the New Testaments because they represent words we believe were in
the original texts, although there might be other renderings from the original
languages which could also be acceptable to us today. For an exhaustive
study of any of the words or verses in the Bible, we urge the student to
return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Traditional
Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.7
Dr Lynn Gray Gordon, a Bible-Presbyterian minister and former

General Secretary of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign
Missions (IBPFM), in his book The Worlds Greatest Truths, rightly said,
Although the King James Version is free from error in thought, fact and
doctrine, that is not to say this version is the inspired version.8 We
agree. We reject the inspired version, advanced revelation, and
super superiority position of Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger.
Although the King James Version is not an inspired version, we
nonetheless uphold it as the Word of God because it is such a faithful,
accurate and reliable translation of the originally inspired and
providentially preserved words of God, and has blessed many millions of
Gods people throughout the 400 years of its existence. This is no fluke,
but Gods approval of the work of godly and faithful translators in the
time of the Reformation. So, as English readers and speakers, we are
wont to stick to the good old version, the King James Version, and its
good old underlying texts.
47
This biblical position on the preservation of the inspired words of

God in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus, and
the goodness and faithfulness of the King James Version was affirmed by
the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC) under the late Dr
Carl McIntire back in 1998 and 2000. The ICCC at its 50th anniversary
World Congress in Amsterdam in 1998 passed a resolution urging
all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only the Authorized KING
JAMES VERSION in their services and in their teaching ministry, and warn
the followers of Christ against these innumerable new bibles which are not
translations at all, but revisions conforming to the personal bias and views
of those who have originated them and who are profiting by commercial
sales of such.9
In the year 2000 in Jerusalem, the ICCC, in a resolution on the Bible

titled, Forever Infallible and Inerrant, they rightly declared,
[T]he O.T. has been preserved in the Masoretic text and the N.T. in the
Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the complete Word of God. The
King James Version in English has been faithfully translated from these
God-preserved manuscripts.10
The Lord calls on all His people to stick to the good old paths,
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old
paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for
your souls (Jer 6:16). The good old Traditional and Reformation Texts
underlying the King James Version bear the marks of these old paths that
faithful believers in the past had walked in, and we today want to walk in
the same way with them.
Temporal Axiom
The authentic Scriptures are the Scriptures that show the marks of
continuity, being always available and easily accessible to Gods people.
Jesus promised three times, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my
words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33).
God has promised to preserve every one of His inspired Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek words perfectly to the jot and tittle so that His
people in every generation and at all times would possess all of His
words and all of His truths in the 66 books of Canonical Scripture which
serve as the sole, supreme and final authority of all Christian beliefs and
practices.
48
The Westcott and Hort Text of 1881 and all the critical texts that
followed, based primarily on the scandalously corrupt manuscripts like
the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, were not the texts that manifest the
marks of continuous and perpetual preservation. They might be old fourth
century manuscripts, but they were not the texts that have been
continuously and perpetually available and accessible to Gods people
down through the ages. In fact, God made sure that these manuscripts
were kept away from His people precisely because they were corrupted
manuscripts. The authentic manuscripts would be the manuscripts that
have been faithfully transmitted and passed down from generation to
generation, always read, used, and studied by the believers throughout the
ages, and held up as the sole, supreme, and final authority of their faith
and practice. Those Scriptures were the faithfully and continuously used
Traditional Text and not the Westcott and Hort Text which appeared in
1881 and scissored away no less than 9970 words from the Traditional
Text.11 If we say that the Westcott and Hort Text is the authentic and
authoritative text, then we are saying that God has failed in His work of
preservation, for it would mean that the Church for 1800 years have been
using the wrong text, and if so, her faith in the Word of God as found in
the Traditional Text has been totally misplaced! This surely cannot be, for
God is true to His Word and to His saints, and by virtue of His promise,
we can see that it is the continuously preserved Traditional Text that
bears the marks of an unbroken lineage as promised by our Lord, the
scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). As such, Dean Burgon was
absolutely correct to say,
I am utterly disinclined to believeso grossly improbable does it seem
that at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose will
prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which remain,
whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be found to
have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally inspired. I am
utterly unable to believe, in short, that Gods promise has so entirely failed,
that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the Gospel has in point of
fact to be picked by a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the
convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodeled after
the pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect during
fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival to that neglect;
whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to pieces, and had bequeathed
their witness to copies made from them.12
49
We not only celebrate the 400 years of the King James Version, but
more significantly the 4000 years God has preserved His words to the jot
and tittle so that in every age, Gods people might have His every word to
believe and live by.
Ecclesiastical Axiom
The Church that God has called out and is faithful does not critique
or criticise His Word but receives it by faith. It is not the rationalistic but
the faith approach that pleases God. Romans 1:17 says, For therein is
the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The
just shall live by faith. Faith pleases God. Hebrews 11:6 says, But
without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God
must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently
seek him. Faith takes God at His WordGod says it, that settles it, we
believe it. This is not to say that faith is void of reason. Our faith is a
very reasonable faith and it is only so because it is based on the Truth.
What is Truth? Gods Word is Truth (John 17:17).
The spirit of faith causes faithful saints to receive the Word with
childlike humility, believing all that it says without any doubt or question.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth and He indwells the saints. The
Bible is the Word of Truth and can only be appreciated and understood if
we have the Spirit of Truth. That was why Jesus said, Howbeit when he,
the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall
not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak:
and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13). For what man
knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even
so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we
have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God;
that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which
things also we speak, not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but
which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they
are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:11-14).
Having received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit of God, we
are able to discern truth from error, right from wrong. We are able to tell
whether it is our Saviour who speaks or Satan, and will follow Christ and
not the devil. Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and
50
they follow me (John 10:27). Consider how the New Testament saints
received the Word: They received the Word of God (1) gladly and
obediently (Acts 2:41), (2) studiously with a ready mind to know the
truth (Acts 17:11), (3) unwaveringly despite great opposition and
persecution (1 Thess 1:6), and (4) without doubting that it is 100%
perfect without any mistake (1 Thess 2:13).
This certainty that Christians have concerning the Holy Scriptures
that God had inspired and preserved, infallible and inerrant is something
stated most clearly in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.5),
We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high
and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of
all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the
full discovery it makes of the only way of mans salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments
whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet
notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and
divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing
witness by and with the Word in our hearts.13
The Holy Scriptures that the Reformation Church held up as their

sole, supreme and final authority were the Hebrew Masoretic Text and
the Greek Textus Receptus on which the King James Bible and all other
Reformation Bibles were based. They are the authentic and authoritative
texts the Church has received down through the ages as the very Word of
God, infallible and inerrant. Dean Burgon averred,
The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the Witness and
Keeper of Holy Writ. Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in
largest measure, the SPIRIT of Truth; and pledge Himself that it should be
that SPIRITS special function to guide her children into all the Truth?
That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be protected all
down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort,was not to
have been expected; certainly was never promised. But the Church, in her
collective capacity, hath neverthelessas a matter of factbeen
perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which once
everywhere abounded within her pale.14
But the apostate spirit of this age seeks to counterfeit and replicate
and fake the Christian Faith by means of fallacious methods and false
texts. This spirit finds its origins in the apostate periods of increasing
unbelief found in liberalism, neo-evangelicalism and postmodernism of
51
the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries respectively. But one thing is for sure, the
Lord knows those who are His. Despite Satans many attempts to confuse
and corrupt the Gospel and the Bible, the Lord will keep His people safe
for the Holy Spirit will guide them into all truth. His people will be able
to recognise His voice and receive His words and will follow His truth
that is found in the inspired and preserved Scriptures.
Evangelistic Axiom
The Great Commission which is Christs first commandment to His
New Testament Church tells us to preach the gospel of salvation in
Christ, baptise in the name of the triune God, and teach the whole
counsel of God to all nations (Matt 28:18-20). To do this, the Holy
Scriptures are essential and indispensable. In fulfilment of the Great
Commission, God and His chosen instrumentnamely His Church
would see to it that the Holy Scriptures would be faithfully copied and
carefully translated, multiplied, and made available and accessible to the
whole world. In keeping with Jesus prophetic words to His disciples just
before His ascension, the gospel and the Scriptures have truly gone out,
not only in Jerusalem, but also Judea and Samaria, even unto the
uttermost part of the earth (Acts 1:8). The Gospel can be read in over
2000 languages, and the Bible has been translated into the worlds major
languages, and more can be done. The Trinitarian Bible Society has been
admirable in doing thistranslating, publishing, and distributing faithful
and trustworthy Bibles which have been translated from the inspired
original language Scriptures God has preserved, namely, the Hebrew
Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus.15
By virtue of the Great Commission, we can expect the authentic
Scriptures to be those found in the majority of the manuscripts or what
has been known as the Byzantine text. It is a fact that the majority of the
New Testament Greek manuscripts bear remarkable uniformity and
harmony. The scribal errors and corruptions have been minimal. This
however was certainly not true of the minority manuscripts of Westcott
and Hort. Using the Textus Receptus as the standard, Burgon compared
the Westcott and Hort uncials to see how much these manuscripts agree
with the Majority Text as represented by the Textus Receptus. This was
what he found when he compared the Gospels of the Textus Receptus
with those of the five Westcott-Hort codices: the serious deflections of A
from the Textus Receptus amount in all to only 842: whereas in C they
52
amount to 1798: in B, 2370: in [aleph], to 3392: in D, to 4697.16 Of the

5255 extant Greek manuscripts (as of 1967), 5217 agree with the Textus
Receptus, and only 45 agree with the corrupt Westcott-Hort Text.17 This
shows that these so-called oldest and most reliable manuscripts are
very different from the Traditional Text used by the Church down through
the ages. Burgon was absolutely correct to conclude, With regret we
record our conviction, that these accomplished scholars [ie, Westcott and
Hort] have succeeded in producing a Text [ie, Minority Text] vastly more
remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which
has appeared since the invention of printing [ie, the Textus Receptus].18
It is necessary to add that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is seriously
undermined in the Alexandrian manuscripts and the Westcott-Hort Text.
Two examples are enough to prove the point. In John 1:18, the original
and traditional reading as found in the Textus Receptus is the only
begotten Son, but the Westcott-Hort Text reads, the only begotten
God. The latter reading is clearly heretical, a reading favoured by the
Gnostics and Arians. Dean Burgon had traced this corruption of the Holy
Scriptures to the heresiarch Valentinus who denied that Jesus Christ was
the Logos (Word) of John 1:1 and 14, and declared that the Logos and
the Son were actually two distinct beings and hence not the same. It is
thus no surprise that Arius whose heresy is today held by the Jehovahs
Witnesses, favoured the corrupt reading the only begotten God over
against the original and traditional reading.19 If Jesus was in any way less
than God as Valentinus and Arius would have it, then He could not be our
God and Saviour and we would still be in our sins and of all people most
miserable.
The second example is 1 Timothy 3:16. The Textus Receptus reads
correctly as God was manifest in the flesh, but the Alexandrian text has
it as, who was manifest in the flesh. According to Dr E F Hills, the
original reading, God was manifest in the flesh,
was altered by the Gnostics into the Western reading, which was manifest in
the flesh, in order to emphasize their favorite idea of mystery. Then this
Western reading was later changed into the meaningless Alexandrian
reading, who was manifest in the flesh.20
The translators of the New International Version (NIV) have

adopted the corrupt reading and by so doing have undermined (1) the
deity of Christ by removing God and replacing it with just He, and
(2) the humanity of Christ by replacing the flesh with a body (a body
53
may not be necessarily be of flesh and blood). The word in the original
is sarx (flesh) and not soma (body). The corrupt reading of the
Westcott-Hort Text and modern versions like the NIV seriously
undermine the doctrine of ChristHis perfect deity and perfect
humanityand this is invariably detrimental to the Gospel of Christ.
Therefore, we are moved by the Gospel of Jesus Christ to go with
the Byzantine manuscripts and the Textus Receptus that consistently bear
the marks of Christological-evangelistic orthodoxy.
Doxological Axiom
Every biblical scholar must study the Holy Scriptures with the glory
of God foremost in his heart and mind. This is in keeping with how God
Himself regards His Word. Such a doxological spirit was found in David
when he said, I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy
name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy
word above all thy name (Ps 138:2). It was also the attitude of John the
Baptist, He must increase, but I must decrease. (John 3:30). This
doxological spirit was also seen in our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, for
when He was on earth He sought only to glorify His Father in all His
words and deeds (John 17:4). As such, it behoves the biblical scholar to
promote truth and orthodoxy in his interpretation of Scripture. Any
interpretation that leads to a glorification and exaltation and the very
highest view of God and His Truth must be accepted, and any that results
in a diminished or lesser view of God and His Truth rejected. Yea, let
God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
By virtue of this axiom, the textual critical approach to the
Scriptures must necessarily be rejected for it denies the doctrine of the
verbal and plenary preservation of the Scriptures, and rejects the
theological or theocentric approach in identifying and ascertaining the
inspired and authentic texts. The modern textual critics say that the
theological approach is non-scientific and unintelligent and therefore
invalid. They denounce as obscurantists and even heretics those who
employ the logic of faith to the whole matter of determining the
autographic text of Scripture by way of receiving the very apographs of
Scripture that God has supernaturally preserved down through the ages
which leads to a certain and tangible fixed text and not an arbitrary and
intangible fluid or evolving text. It is thus no surprise that evangelical
scholars who have abandoned the theological approach and embraced the
54
rationalistic approach of textual criticism have also abandoned the

inerrancy of Scripture and advocate an inerrancy that is confined only to
a Scripture that they aver no longer exists (ie, the autographs). Hence to
them the Bible today is not 100% infallible and inerrantthe Bible was
only infallible and inerrant in the past, but it is no longer as infallible and
inerrant today. Such a view takes away the glory of God and reduces the
Bible to a mere human book stripped of all its divine and absolute
authority as the Word of God. The textual critic and his rules become the
authority and it is he who has the know-how and is the know-all on what
the Church is to believe or not believe about Gods words. Who is
glorified in the whole textual critical exercise? Not God but man.
Has the Church at large become more godly and Christ-honouring
with the introduction of textual criticism since the 19th century? No, in
fact it has become more deadly. Many churches after a century of textual
criticism have already died, and become synagogues of Satan. The only
way the Church is going to be revived is to reform the Church and teach
her to think and act doxologicallythe glory of God must always be first
and foremost in the thinking and conduct of the Christian and of the
ChurchBut seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you. (Matt 6:33). Isaiah 42:8
says, I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to
another.
Let us pay heed to the Apostle Pauls admonition in 1 Corinthians
1:18-31,
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us
which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the
wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the
prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after
that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews
require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ
crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of
God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than
men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your
calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of
55

the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the
world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things
which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory
in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto
us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That,
according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
Dr E F Hills was absolutely correct to say, We must make God and

Jesus Christ His Son the starting point of all our thinking.21 But there is
great resistance even rebellion today in many a Bible college and
seminary which instead of teaching students to begin with God and His
Word, they teach their students to begin with the thoughts and methods of
men, many of whom are unbelievers. In the field of textual criticism, I
was told by my college and seminary professors, Go to Metzger, go to
Aland, Westcott and Hort are good and godly. But I discovered that
these men were unbelievers and apostates. According to Hills, the
unqualified recommendation of unregenerate scholars and their
scholarship is destructive.
Hills offered the only approach which is God-honouring and soulsaving. If we are Christians, then we must begin our thinking not with
the assertions of unbelieving scholars, and their naturalistic human logic,
but with Christ and the logic of faith. 22 He explained how the
theological-doxological approach works.
For example, how do we know that the Textus Receptus is the true New
Testament text? We know this through the logic of faith. Because the
Gospel is true, the Bible which contains this Gospel was infallibly inspired
by the Holy Spirit. And because the Bible was infallibly inspired, it has
been preserved by Gods special providence. Moreover, this providential
preservation was not done privately in secret holes and caves but publicly in
the usage of Gods Church. Hence the true New Testament text is found in
the majority of the New Testament manuscripts. And this providential
preservation did not cease with the invention of printing. Hence the
formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided.
And how do we know that the King James Version is a faithful translation
of the true New Testament text? We know this also through the logic of
faith. Since the formation of the Textus Receptus was God-guided, the
translation of it was God-guided also. For as the Textus Receptus was being
formed, it was also being translated. The two processes were simultaneous.
Hence the early Protestant versions, such as Luthers, Tyndales, the
Geneva, and the King James, were actually varieties of the Textus Receptus.
56

And this was necessarily so according to the principles of Gods preserving
providence. For the Textus Receptus had to be translated in order that the
universal priesthood of believers, the rank and file, might give it their Godguided approval.
In biblical studies, and in every other learned field we must begin with
Christ and then work out our basic principles according to the logic of faith.
This procedure will show us how to utilize the learning of non-Christian
scholars in such a way as to profit by their instruction. Undeniably these
unbelievers know a great many facts by virtue of Gods common grace.
They misinterpret these facts, however, because they ignore and deny Gods
revelation of Himself in and through the facts. Hence our task is to point
out the inconsistencies and absurdities of unbelieving thought and then to
take the facts which learned unbelievers have assembled and place them in
their proper framework of biblical truth.
For example, if we begin with Christ, then we will understand what
language is, namely the medium in which God reveals the facts unto men
and also Himself in and through the facts. And if we adopt this basic
position, then the study of Greek grammar, and especially the history of it,
will prove immensely profitable to us and will strengthen our faith, for then
we will see how God in His providence has preserved the knowledge of
Greek grammar from the days of the ancient Alexandrian grammarians
down to the time of Erasmus and the Protestant Reformers and even up
until now. Such a survey certainly increases our confidence in the King
James translators. Judged even by modern standards, their knowledge of the
biblical languages was second to none.
Begin with Christ and the Gospel and follow the logic of faith. This is the
principle that must guide us in our graduate studies, especially in the
biblical field. If we adhere to it, then everything we learn will fit beautifully
into its place in the Christian thought-system. But if we ignore Christ and
adopt a neutral approach to knowledge, we will soon lose ourselves in a
wilderness of details and grow more and more chaotic in our thinking.23
Historical Axiom
The God of the Bible is not a God who is absent. He is very much
present and at work, controlling and directing all the events of the world
and in the Church to fulfil His predetermined and perfect plan of
salvation. His plan of salvation is fully revealed in His Written Word
the Holy Scriptures. In them, we find many prophecies and promises, and
we see them being fulfilled and kept by God to the last detail. The only
way whereby Gods people may know His mind and will is through His
Book of prophecies and promises, and these prophecies and promises
57
inscribed in Scripture must necessarily be preserved intact and without

amendments or corruptions, or else we would be left very unsure and
confused about the intent and contents of Gods prophecies and promises,
whether they are actually the original prophecies and promises or
whether they have been altered or changed along the way. Unless God did
exactly what He promised to do, that is to preserve His words infallibly
so that every word, syllable and letter would be precisely what He had
originally given, we would be thrown into all kinds of confusion and
uncertainty with regard to what God has bequeathed to His people in the
two Testaments of Holy Scripture.
In history, God proved that He has always been mindful to preserve
and keep His words pure and uncorrupted. There are at least two biblical
precedents of Gods preservation of His words. The Rev Dr Timothy Tow
ably explained this in his article, Gods Special Providential Care of the
Text of Scripture,
There are two accounts recorded by Moses on the giving of the Ten
Commandments. The first is in Exodus 19:16-21:26; 31:18-32:28; 34:1-4.
The second is recorded in Deuteronomy 5:1-29; 9:10-21; 10:1-5.
Deuteronomy means second giving of the Law. Deuteronomy is Moses
instruction to the children of Israel at the end of his life and of what greater
importance is the giving of the Ten Commandments? For brevity, I have
chosen to discuss from Deuteronomy and not Exodus.
The delivery of the Ten Commandments was made on the top of Mount
Sinai, over 7,000 feet above sea level. The whole process took forty days
and forty nights, amidst thunder and lightning, fire and smoke, the blowing
of trumpet and the voice of Almighty God speaking to men. Then God
wrote the sentences of the Ten Commandments with His own finger over
the two tablets, front and back. In the climax of the forty days and nights,
rebellion to Gods promulgation of the Ten Commandments arose from the
ground. The people had made a golden calf to substitute for Jehovah saying
this was their god, whereupon Moses wrath was kindled. When he was
confronted by this golden calf, he became so angry that he threw the two
tablets of law to the ground. Symbolically, Gods Commandments were
broken. The golden calf the children of Israel had made was ground into
fine powder and mixed with water for Israel to drink, which was their
punishment. Can puny man rebel against Gods Word with impunity?
To re-establish the giving of the Law, God commanded Moses to hew
another two tablets of stone and bring them with him back to the mountain
top. And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten
commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the
58

midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto
me. And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables
in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded
me (Deuteronomy 10:4-5).
The Ark of the Covenant is the only holy furniture kept inside the Holy of
Holies. Gods sacred commandments, intact and written on both sides of the
two tablets so nothing can be added and nothing can be subtracted, were
kept secure from any human intrusion. For ever, O LORD, thy word is
settled in heaven (Psalm 119:89).
The restoration of the two tables is to show that heaven and earth shall pass
away, but His words shall not pass away. Not one letter or even the cross of
a t, and the dot of an i. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law. Jesus says,
The scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
To doubly confirm that heaven and earth shall pass away but Gods words
shall not pass away, we have the record in Jeremiah 36 of how the prophet
asked his secretary Baruch to write words of condemnation against the
House of Judah and caused them to be read to Judah. When the roll
Jeremiah dictated to Baruch was read before Jehoiakim, king of Judah, he
cut it up and burned it wholly in the fire. Did Gods Word become ashes?
God told Jeremiah to repeat His Words to be written by Baruch again and
add more words for the punishment of King Jehoiakim. Can puny man rebel
against Gods Word with impunity?
This leads us to the doctrine of Gods special providential care of the text of
Scripture. This is affirmed by the Westminster Confession. It states that the
Scripture is kept pure in all ages. This is doubly attested by David in
Psalm 12:6-7, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou
shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The doctrine of the
special providential care of the text of Scripture, however, is denied by even
some fundamentalist scholars. Dr. Carl McIntire has this commentary to
make: What is interesting about all this is that, in talking about the mighty
acts of God and trying to make out of our God a great and powerful God,
they have produced for us a God who is unable to give us a record that is
true! They believe in the infallibility and inerrancy only in the autographs,
but not in the subsequent copies.
We believe the Textus Receptus (Received Text) upon which the KJV is
based, is preserved intact for the church so that we can say we have the
Word of God in our hands. But those versions that are based on Westcott
and Hort who supplant with their corrupt text have made changes and
deletions in 9,900 places in the New International Version (NIV). The text
59

underlying NIV is not as the Westminster Confession says, kept pure in all
ages. God has preserved for us a pure Bible as He preserved the Ten
Commandments for us to this day. Let me say it again, it is the Textus
Receptus on which the KJV is based.24
It ought to be noted that Gods providential preservation of His

Scripture is not ordinary but extraordinary, not a hands off but a hands on
preservation of His words. The deistic heresy that God inspired His Word
but did nothing to preserve it must be rejected. Dr Timothy Tow rightly
said,
If Deism teaches a Creator who goes to sleep after creating the world is
absurd, to hold to the doctrine of inspiration without preservation is equally
illogical inspiration and preservation are linked one to another. Without
preservation, all the inspiration, God-breathing into the Scriptures, would
be lost. But we have a Bible so pure and powerful in every word and it is so
because God has preserved it down through the ages.25
I believe God providentially guided the King James translators to

produce the purest Textus Receptus of all. The earlier editions were
individual efforts, but the Textus Receptus underlying the King James
Version is a corporate effort of 54 of the most outstanding biblicaltheological, and more importantly, Bible-believing scholars of their day.
And as the Scripture says, in a multitude of counsellors there is safety
(Prov 11:14). The King James translators had all the various editions of
the Textus Receptus to refer to, and they made their decisions with the
help of the Holy Spirit. I believe the Lord providentially guided the King
James translators to make the right textual decisions. As such, I do not
believe we need to improve on the Textus Receptus underlying the King
James Version. No one should play textual critic, and be a judge of Gods
Word today. God is His own Textual Critic. I accept Gods special
providential work in history during the great 16th Century Protestant
Reformation.
Now the question remains: Why the Textus Receptus underlying the
King James Version and not Luthers German Bible, or the Spanish Reina
Valera, or the Polish Biblia Gdanska, or the French Martin Bible, or some
other language Bible? Now we do not deny there are faithful and reliable
versions that are accurately translated and based on the Textus Receptus,
nor do we discount the need for foreign language Bibles, but here is Dr
Hillss reply to the question:
God in His providence has abundantly justified this confidence of the King
James translators. The course of history has made English a world-wide
60

language which is now the native tongue of at least 300 million people and
the second language of many millions more. For this reason the King James
Version is known the world over and is more widely read than any other
translation of the holy Scriptures. Not only so, but the King James Version
has been used by many missionaries as a basis and guide for their own
translation work and in this way has extended its influence even to converts
who know no English. For more than 350 years therefore the reverent
diction of the King James Version has been used by the Holy Spirit to bring
the Word of life to millions upon millions of perishing souls. Surely this is a
God-guided translation on which God, working providentially, has placed
the stamp of His approval.26
This is in keeping with Jesus words, Even so every good tree bringeth
forth good fruit Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt
7:17-20).
I believe the purity of Gods Word has been faithfully maintained
throughout the whole transmission of the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/
Received Text, and is fully represented in the Apographs of the Hebrew
Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for
the New Testament underlying the King James Version. E F Hills rightly
concluded, We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favour that
form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other, God
working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the
King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek Text underlying the
King James Version.27 I also agree with Hills who warned, We must be
very cautious therefore about finding errors in the text of the King James
Version, and the same holds true also in the realm of translation.
Whenever the renderings of the King James Version are called in
question, it is usually the accuser that finds himself in the wrong.28
As regards the Traditional Text being a virtual photocopy of the
original, G I Williamson did write to this effect in his commentary on the
Westminster Confession concerning preservation,
This brings us to the matter of Gods singular care and providence by
which He has kept pure in all ages this original text, so that we now
actually possess it in authentical form. And let us begin by giving an
illustration from modern life to show that an original document may be
destroyed, without the text of that document being lost. Suppose you were
to write a will. Then suppose you were to have a photographic copy of that
will made. If the original were then destroyed, the photographic copy would
still preserve the text of that will exactly the same as the original itself. The
61

text of the copy would differ in no way whatever from the original, and so it
would possess exactly the same truth and meaning as the original. Now of
course photography was not invented until long after the original copy
had been worn out or lost. How then could the original text of the Word of
God be preserved? The answer is that God preserved it by His own
remarkable care and providence.29
Concerning what the Westminster theologians meant when they

declared that the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament
being immediately inspired of God, and by His singular care and
providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, we have
another commentary from Prof William F Orr of Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary who wrote,
this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the
New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately
inspired by God because it was identical with the first text that God had
kept pure in all the ages. The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew
Masoretic texts or in the Textus Receptus of the New Testament was
unknown to the authors of the Confession of Faith.30
Is there a historical precedent that tells us that Gods special

providential work can involve a closure, a terminus? The answer is yes.
All the inspired New Testament books were completed by AD 100 when
the Apostle John wrote the last book of Revelation, and God warned
against adding to or subtracting from His Word in Revelation 22:18-19.
However, we know that in the first few centuries, there were heretical
men who penned spurious gospels and epistles, and passed them off as
Scripture. Some of these were the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of
Nicodemus, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc. Nevertheless, none of the
inspired books of Scripture have been lost or obscured in the canonical
process. By the special providential guidance of the Holy Spirit, Gods
people were led to identify the 27 books to become our New Testament
Canon, no more, no less. There was a terminus to the canonisation of
Scripture at the Council of Carthage in 397.
In like manner, the Lord allowed copyist errors to enter into the
transmission process through the pen of fallible scribes. Nevertheless,
His providential hand kept His inspired words of Scripture from being
lost or corrupted. In light of Gods providence, that nothing happens by
chance, and that history is under His sovereign control, I believe that in
the fulness of timein the most opportune time of the Reformation when
62
the true church separated from the false, when the study of the original
languages was emphasised, and the printing press invented (which meant
that no longer would there be any need to handcopy the Scriptures
thereby ensuring a uniform text)God restored from out of a pure stream
of preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the purest Hebrew and
Greek Text of allthe Text that underlies our King James Versionthat
accurately reflects the original Scriptures.
Conclusion
The seven biblical axioms (viz, epangelical, linguistic, temporal,
ecclesiastical, evangelistic, doxological, and historical) above have
helped and guided me to know for sure which is, what is, and where is
the inspired Bible that God has preserved. It has freed me from the
shackles of uncertainty and unbelief. It gives me full confidence in Gods
totally inspired and forever preserved infallible and inerrant words which
are my sole, supreme and final authority of faith and practice. Jesus
promised, And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free. (John 8:32). Paul said, For we can do nothing against the truth,
but for the truth. (2 Cor 13:8). Truth never fails, it always prevails! To
God be the glory great things He has done!
Notes
David Otis Fuller, ed, Which Bible? (Grand Rapids: Institute for Biblical
Textual Studies, 1970).
2
Bart D Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 10,
11.
3
Suan Yew Quek, Did God Promise to Preserve His Words? Interpreting
Psalm 12:6-7. The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-98.
4
Hear his sermon entitled, Help, LORD! (Psalm 12), preached on
January 11, 1992, accessible from www.sermonaudio.com.
5
The Constitution of the Bible Presbyterian Church: The Confession of
Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Form of Government, the Book of
Discipline (np: General Synod of the Bible Presbyterian Church, 1989), 3.
6
Martin I Klauber, trans, The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675),
Trinity Journal 11 (1990): 103.
7
Articles of Faith, Operation and Organization, as adopted at the
Organizational Meeting of the Dean Burgon Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
November 3-4, 1978.
8
Lynn Gray Gordon, The Worlds Greatest Truths, vol 1 (Singapore: Far
Eastern Bible College Press, 1999), 26.
1
63

Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version
and the Doctrine of Providential Preservation (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible
College Press, 2001), 128.
10
Ibid, 126.
11
D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 3rd rev ed (Collingswood:
Bible for Today, 2006), xii.
12
J W Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the
Holy Gospels (Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998 reprint), 11, 12.
13
The Constitution of the Bible Presbyterian Church, 2.
14
J W Burgon, The Revision Revised: A Refutation of Westcott and Horts
False Greek Text and Theory (Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, 2000
reprint), 334, 335.
15
Trinitarian Bible Society, Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture,
Quarterly Record 571 (April-June 2005): 6-15.
16
Burgon, The Revision Revised, 14.
17
D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 52, 53
18
Burgon, The Revision Revised, 25, 26
19
Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy
Gospels, 215-218.
20
E F Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed (Des Moines:
Christian Research Press, 1984), 137, 138.
21
Ibid, 113.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid, 113, 114.
24
Timothy Tow, Gods Special Providential Care of the Text of Scripture,
Bible Witness (October - December 2002): 3, 4.
25
Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, Theology for Every Christian
(Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2007), 89.
26
Hills, The King James Version Defended, 216.
27
Ibid, 223.
28
E F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines: Christian Research Press,
1977), 83.
29
G I Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964), 15.
30
William F Orr, The Authority of the Bible as Reflected in the proposed
Confession of 1967, as quoted by Theodore Letis, ed, The Majority Text
(Philadelphia: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987),
174.
9
64
13
INSPIRATION, PRESERVATION, AND
TRANSLATIONS
In Search of the Biblical Identity of the
Bible-Presbyterian Church
Jeffrey Khoo
THESIS
(1) The Holy Scriptures are verbally and plenarily inspired (VPI) by
God in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
(2) These VPI words in the original languages are verbally and plenarily
preserved (VPP) by God throughout the ages, and found in the
Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Greek Textus
Receptus of the New Testament.
(3) The King James or Authorised Version is a most faithful and reliable
translation of these VPI and VPP Hebrew/Aramaic Old Testament
and Greek New Testament words which are totally infallible and
inerrant and hence supremely authoritative in all matters of faith and
practice.
INSPIRATION
The Bible-Presbyterian (B-P) ConstitutionArticle 4.2.1states,
We believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in
the original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as
the Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life.
Definitions
Let us now define the important terms found in the above statement
of faith.
The term, divine, verbal and plenary inspiration (VPI) means that
the Holy Scriptures are a product of Gods very own breath (2 Tim 3:16,
65
theopneustos, literally Godspiration or Godspired, and accurately

rendered as inspired of God in the KJV) whereby God as Author
supernaturally ensures that His inspired words as a whole (plenary) and
in their parts to the last iota (verbal, cf Matt 4:4, 5:18) are not at all the
words of sinful and fallible men but indeed the very words of the thrice
holy and infallible God and thus entirely truthful and absolutely perfect,
without any mistake or error (Ps 12:6, 19:7).
The divine VPI words are in the original languages. What are the
original languages? They are the Hebrew and Aramaic words of the
Old Testament Scripture, and the Greek words of the New Testament
Scripture.
The words inerrancy and infallibility tell us that the Holy
Scriptures by virtue of its very nature as Gods VPI words are without
any mistake or error (inerrant), and incapable of error (infallible). The
Bible is totally infallible and inerrant not only in matters of salvation, but
also in matters of history, geography, and science.
The VPI Scripture being the very Word of God, infallible and
inerrant, serves as the Supreme and final authority on all Christian
beliefs and practices. In other words, what the Bible says rules and
overrules all human theories and methods. God is always right, and man
is wrong every time he disagrees with God (Rom 3:4). Every doctrine and
practice of the church must be supported by the Scriptures and the
Scriptures alone (not Scripture plus ).
As such, Article 4.2.1 of the B-P Constitution is a fine statement of
faith, and accurate on the 100% or perfect inspiration of the Bible not
only as a whole (plenary inspiration) but down to its words (verbal
inspiration) in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
The plain and natural reading of the statement assumes the present
perfection of the Scriptures, that believers possess a 100% inspired Bible
in their hands that is totally infallible and inerrant without any mistake
and their sole and supreme authority of faith and practice.
Autographs Only or Apographs Also?
But in the present Bibliological crisis in the Singapore B-P Church,
VPI as spelled out in Article 4.2.1 is interpreted by 11 pastors from 7 B-P
churches (Galilee, Grace, Life, Nazareth, Olivet, Shalom, and Zion) to be
applicable to the original autographs (ie, the very first scripts written
66
Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations
by God Himself, or His prophets, or His apostles) without including the

apographs (manuscript copies). They wrote saying, We
wholeheartedly believe and affirm that the inspired Word of God has
absolutely no error in the Original Autographs. However we reject
Verbal Plenary Preservation.1
This Autographs Only view of infallibility and inerrancy is also
held by the Board of Elders of Calvary B-P Church (Jurong) who in their
paper on their Non-VPP Stand made their position very clear that
Only the original autographs of the OT and NT are the inspired,
infallible and inerrant Word.2 Now it must be said that both evangelicals
and fundamentalists affirm the VPI of the original autographs. There is
therefore no issue here. This is also acknowledged in the Life B-P Church
Sunday School paper of December 1, 2002 entitled, Preserving Our
Godly Path. In that paper it is clearly stated, The debate concerning the
Perfect Bible is NOT about the original writings (or the autographs) of
the biblical writers (such as Moses, Peter or Paul). We VPP advocates
do not dispute the VPI of the autographs. The truth is VPP cannot stand
without VPI and vice versa. Those who wish to preserve godly paths
ought to realise that there will be no godly paths to preserve if God did
not preserve His perfect words. Perfect Bible first before godly paths is
theologically correct.
So what is the issue all about if it is not about VPI? The issue is all
about this: Is the Word of God infallible and inerrant in the autographs
and the autographs only, or is the Word of God infallible and inerrant in
the apographs also? Simply asked: Is the Word of God perfect only in the
past but no longer perfect today? Is the Bible of today a lost and broken
relic or is it a precise and exact representation of the Original that God
gave in the beginning by virtue of His perfect preservation of every jot
and tittle of His inspired words in the Original?
Anti-VPPists argue from Article 4.2.1 of the B-P Constitution that
the infallible and inerrant Scriptures are only in the autographs. But
where does it say so? Nowhere! It must be underscored that it stands
precisely written in Article 4.2.1 that the inspired Scriptures the B-P
Church believes to be infallible and inerrant are the Scriptures in the
original languages and not simply and only the autographs. Why do
the 11 pastors alter the sense of the Constitution by interpreting the word
languages to mean autographs if not to exclude what they consider as
67
theory but what we see as doctrine that the Bible is presently

infallible and inerrant?
Now if what the anti-VPPists say is true that the perfect and
authoritative Scriptures can refer only to the autographs, then where are
the autographs? Do they not agree that the autographs have already
perished and are no more? And if so where are the fully inspired, totally
inerrant, and absolutely authoritative Scriptures that Bible believers can
use confidently and declare, Thus saith the Lord? If we only believe
that God has only inspired but did not preserve His words, we will not be
able to say we have Gods totally infallible, inerrant and supremely
authoritative Word today.
Now, if we do indeed have the inspired words of God today, then
where are they? This brings us to the divine and special providential
preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
PRESERVATION
Do we have the inspired words of God today in the original
languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek)? If we do, then where are they?
That is the key question which the autographs alone advocates cannot
answer. They confess that the autographs are long gone and no more. As
such, how can a non-existent authority serve as our final authority? An
authority must be existent, tangible, available right now, at this time, or
else it can be no authority at all. It goes without saying that an appeal to
the non-existent autographs as the Churchs supreme and final authority
is both illogical and untenable.
The veracity and validity of the Biblical Covenant is undermined
when the 11 pastors affirm VPI but not VPP. They confidently affirm the
total infallibility and inerrancy of the non-existent autographs (which
they do not have and cannot produce), but cannot believe in a verbally
and plenarily preserved and hence presently existing infallible and
inerrant Scripture in the original languages (which they pejoratively call a
theory and a new doctrine). They wrote dismissively, we reject the
theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation that the Greek and Hebrew
copies immediately underlying the King James Version are an exact
replica of the Original Autographs. Note that they have no biblical basis
whatsoever for their non-VPP position. It is purely their opinion, or may I
also say only a theory? But by the logic of faith, we VPP believers
68
declare that we indeed have Gods infallible and inerrant Word in our
hands today, and identify the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words
behind the King James Bible to be precisely the words God has perfectly
preserved.
Imperfect Hebrew and Greek Texts?
In a Life B-P Church Statement of Clarification, issued on January
19, 2003, the majority of the session (2 assistant pastors, 4 elders, and 12
deacons) and three preachers opposed their founding pastorRev Dr
Timothy Towwho affirmed the Bible to be 100% perfect without any
mistake. In their Statement of Clarification they wrote, While
agreeing wholeheartedly to the KJV Bible being the very Word of God
and fully reliable, the contributors of Preserving Our Godly Path
paper do not believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie
the KJB are perfect (emphasis in the original). Question: How can they
endorse the KJV as the very (ie, complete, absolute, utter) Word of God
and fully reliable and yet not believe that the Hebrew and Greek texts
that underlie the KJB are perfect (ie, complete, flawless, exact)? How
can the KJVa translationbe 100% without its source textsthe
Hebrew and Greek Scripturesbeing 100%? This is highly illogical and
unnatural. As Jesus said, For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit;
neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Luke 6:43).
Unlike non-VPP KJV users who say yes to the KJV but no to the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words underlying the KJV, VPP advocates
say yes to the KJV and yes also to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
words behind the KJV. We believe the KJV to be the Word of God
precisely because the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words underlying it
are the very words God has inspired and preserved, and therefore 100%
perfect, without any mistake. We say yes to the KJV, and a double yes to
the original language Scriptures behind the KJV. Is this not biblically
logical and consistent? Does it not instill faith and confidence in God and
His Word for B-Ps who have always used and trusted the KJV as Gods
Word?3
Lost Words?
The 11 B-P pastors rejection of VPP surely contradicts the
Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) to which every Reformed or
Presbyterian Church (and certainly the B-P Church) subscribes. It is
69
significant to note that the WCF speaks of the authenticity of the

Scriptures in terms of the original language Scriptures, namely the Old
Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek (note the
absence of the autographs in the Confession). Chapter I and paragraph
VIII of the WCF states,
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people
of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the
writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately
inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all
ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the
Church is finally to appeal unto them.
The affirmation by His singular care and providence clearly states

that Biblical preservation is Gods work and not mans. That is why this
providence is a special one. That is why it has to be verbal and not just
doctrinal preservation. If God is the One who single-handedly preserves
His inspired words and keeps them pure, we can expect Him to do no less
than a perfect jobevery word is kept intact and none is lost. For biblical
support, the Westminster theologians cited Matthew 5:18, For verily I
say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Does not the declaration that
the Holy Scriptures are truly and presently authentical (ie, perfect,
genuine, true) because they have been kept pure by His singular care
and providence mean precisely the divine, verbal and plenary
preservation of the Scriptures? How can Gods preservation of His
inspired words in the Holy Scriptures be less than infallible, entire, total,
complete, and full? But anti-VPPists speak of only essential (ie, partial)
preservationthe doctrines, truths, claims are preserved (ie, conceptual
or thought preservation), not the words (ie, verbal preservation) for in
their judgement some words of Scripture have been lost and are no more
(eg, 1 Sam 13:1, 2 Chron 22:2). They then assure us that in their
scholarly opinion, these lost words of Scripture are unnecessary for our
faith and will not affect our salvation because they are redundant and
insignificant. Does this lost Bible or lost words view of
preservation not contradict Gods own promise of jot-and-tittle
preservation in Matthew 5:18 as cited by the Westminster divines?
Jot-and-Tittle Preservation
This anti-VPP lost words view does indeed contradict the
promissory words of Jesus. How do anti-VPPists respond? They respond
70
by saying, We must reexamine what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18.

Perhaps jot and tittle does not mean literally jot and tittle, but is an
exaggeration. Is this what they mean by a godly path to God and His
Word? In preserving our godly path should we not reexamine our
ignorant selves and our fallible thoughts instead? Should we not apply the
infallible principle of the glory of God in our regard for our Lord and the
interpretation of His Word (Isa 42:8, Jer 9:23-24, John 7:18)? Should we
not take Gods Word literally unless it is clearly figurative? Surely God
says what He means and means what He says. God says it, that settles it,
and we believe it. This has always been the basic hermeneutical ethos of
Biblical fundamentalists and inerrantists. Does not puny man know that
the almighty God has magnified His Word above all His Name (Ps
138:2)?
It is crucial to know that the Reformers never thought of the
perfection or infallibility of the Scriptures only in terms of the nonexistent autographs but always in terms of the ever-existing apographs.
According to Richard Muller,
The Protestant scholastics do not press the point made by their nineteenthcentury followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the freedom of
Scripture from error reside absolutely in the autographa and only in a
derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the scholastics argue positively
that the apographa preserve intact the true words of the prophets and the
apostles and that the God-breathed (theopneustos) character of Scripture is
manifest in the apographa as well as in the autographa.4
The Westminster divines in 1648 believed their Bible to be totally

infallible and inerrant without any mistake. This is observed by William
Orr who wrote,
Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek
of the New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately
inspired by God because it was identical with the first text that God has
Which Hebrew OT text and Greek NT text did the Westminster

divines use in their day? Was it not the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the
Greek Textus Receptus that underlie the Reformation Bibles as best
represented by the KJV? If the Westminster pastors and theologians did
not think that the Bible they possessed in their day had any mistake, why
71
is it so wrong and sinful for us today to also believe that the same
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures the Westminster divines used are without
any mistake?
VPI Without VPP is Useless
The question however remains: Does Article 4.2.1 deny the biblical
doctrine of the 100% preservation of the inspired words in the original
languages? It is obvious that the B-P Constitution in keeping to the
Westminster Confession of Faith and the Biblical doctrine of the
infallibility and inerrancy of Scriptures wrote the words original
languages and not Original Autographs for the Scriptures in the
original languages apply not only to the autographs but also the
apographs without which we have no infallible and inerrant Scriptures
today to serve as our final and supreme authority of faith and practice.
Although it may be argued that it is inspiration and not preservation of
the Scriptures that is mentioned in Article 4.2.1, preservation is surely
implied and only logical for why would God want to inspire a perfect
Bible in the beginning without wanting to preserve it? Will a person
apply hair tonic to his head if he wants to be bald?
Myron Houghton of Faith Baptist Seminary, though not a Textus
Receptus or KJV man, was nonetheless honest and truthful in this
observation of his,
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God [2 Timothy 3:16]. Another
way of saying this would be, all Scripture is God-breathed, or all
Scripture comes from the mouth of God. This means God is directly
responsible for causing the Bible writers to put down everything that He
wanted written without error and without omission. But what of the Bible I
hold in my hand? Is it Gods Word? Can it be trusted? The answer is yes!
Both truthsthe inspiration and inerrancy of the original manuscripts and
the trustworthiness of the Bible in my handmust be acknowledged. To
affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of the original writings while casting
doubt on the authority of the Bible that is available to us is just plain silly.
Can you really imagine someone seriously saying, I have good news and I
have bad news: the good news is that God wanted to give us a message and
therefore caused a book to be written; the bad news is that He didnt
possess the power to preserve it and therefore we dont know what it said!
A view of inspiration without a corresponding view of preservation is of no
value.6
72
Ian Paisley, renowned leader of the World Congress of

Fundamentalists and an ardent defender of the KJV and its underlying
texts, observed likewise,
The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures demands the verbal Preservation of
the Scriptures. Those who would deny the need for verbal Preservation
cannot be accepted as being really committed to verbal Inspiration. If there
is no preserved Word of God today then the work of Divine Revelation and
Divine Inspiration has perished.7
Preservation: The Bridge Between Inspiration and Translation

But it is sad that those who are expected to champion the verbal
inspiration of Scripture are so quick to deny its verbal preservation. Such
a denial of VPP is seen in a statement issued on October 29, 2005 by the
Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC) entitled The
Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures:
Recently some brethren in Singapore have been advocating that apart from
the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI) and consequent inerrancy and
infallibility of The Scriptures in the original languages, the Hebrew
Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus manuscripts immediately
underlying the King James Version are also verbally and plenarily
preserved being an exact replica of the Original Autographs. This Verbal
Plenary Preservation (VPP) theory for the KJVs underlying texts thus
claiming 100% perfection for the KJV, is without Biblical foundation.
This has not been, and is not the position of the ICCC or SCCC or other
ICCC-affiliated organizations. The SCCC therefore calls upon its members
and all other Bible-believing brethren not to subscribe to this new,
Biblically unfounded and unproven theory.8
The question I would like to ask is: Why did they not entitle their
statement, The Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations of the Holy
Scriptures? Why is there no Preservation? Without preservation, what
is the use of inspiration? Without preservation how can there be
translations? The fallacy of the SCCC statement is precisely due to this
missing link which is Preservation. Notwithstanding the missing link
of Preservation, the SCCC statement in its published form saw a quick
evolution. The November-December 2005 issue of the Far Eastern
Beacon published an improved version of its primitive forebear passed
on October 29, 2005. Here is a comparison of the old and new statements
of the SCCC against VPP:
73

Recently some brethren in Singapore and elsewhere have been
advocatingpromulgating that apart from the verbal plenary inspiration (VPI)
and the consequent inerrancy and infallibility of Thethe Holy Scriptures in
the original languages, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus
Receptus manuscripts immediately underlying the King James Version are
also verbally and plenarily of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, the words of
the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts that underlie the King
James Bible are the very words which God has preserved down through the
centuries being anthe exact replicawords of the Original
Autographsoriginals themselves. This theory of claiming Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) theory for the KJVs underlying texts thus claiming
100% perfection for the KJVand their exact identification with the Holy
Scriptures in the original languages, is without Biblical foundation. This has
not been, and is not the position of the ICCC or SCCC or other ICCCaffiliated organizations. The SCCC therefore calls upon its members and all
other Bible-believing brethren not to subscribe to this new, Biblically
unfounded and unproven theory.
The revised version continues to deny VPP. Many today believe in

inspiration and translation but not preservation. Such a belief begs the
question: How could the inspired autographs serve as the basis for any
translation if they have not been preserved by God? Without preservation
there is just a great chasm with no bridge to cross from inspiration to
translation. Despite our many attempts to define and clarify what VPP
means, and why this doctrine is vital for the protection of the Christian
Faith, the safeguarding of the beloved KJV (which the SCCC claims to
uphold), and the basis for faithful translations of the Scriptures into other
languages, the SCCC remains insistent on denying VPP, even pugnacious
in pushing for its rejection.
VPP is Honourable Not Heretical
In Calvary Jurongs Non-VPP paper, it is stated that the ICCC
(SCCC) calls on all Christians not to accept the VPP teaching.9 When
did the ICCC pass a resolution against VPP or endorse the SCCC
statement against VPP? What the ICCC did do however under Carl
McIntires presidency was to pass an excellent resolution not only in
Amsterdam in 1998 but also in Jerusalem in 2000 affirming the
superiority of the KJV over against the modern versions, and the Bible to
be Forever Infallible and Inerrant with the following fine declaration of
faith:
74

the O.T. has been preserved in the Masoretic text and the N.T. in the Textus
Receptus, combined they gave us the complete Word of God. The King
James Version in English has been faithfully translated from these Godpreserved manuscripts.10
The ICCC clearly resolved to uphold the forever infallible and

inerrant Scriptures which is nothing short of VPP, and identified the
complete and preserved Scriptures to be the Hebrew Masoretic Text and
the Greek Textus Receptus from which the KJV has been faithfully
translated. This is precisely the stand taken by FEBC and all VPP
advocates. It goes without saying that the SCCC has seriously
undermined the credibility of the ICCC by such an act against VPP, and
the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words
underlying the KJV. It even calls upon its members and all other Biblebelieving brethren not to subscribe to this new, Biblically unfounded and
unproven theory. Is it not strange for the SCCC to call on Biblebelieving brethren to believe that the Bible they have in their hands
today contains mistakes? What kind of Bible-believing faith is this? If
the SCCC disagrees with but does not discriminate against VPP, that
would not be unreasonable, but they intend to ban and silence VPP which
is not only unfair but also unjust. Is this not an attempt at schism?
The SCCC (echoing the group of 11 pastors) claims that the
promulgation of VPP is schismatic. Not so. It is not the promulgation
but the prohibition and persecution of VPP that is schismatic. The antiVPPists can go ahead to preach and write that the Bible is no longer
infallible and inerrant since in their mind it contains some insignificant
mistakes (whether God is pleased or grieved by this, and whether His
people will accept it or be stumbled, should be left to the convicting work
and judgement of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of His saints); but why
should they forbid and prevent VPP believers from declaring and
defending the Bible they have in their hands today to be truly infallible
and inerrant without any mistake?
If anti-VPPists feel that they cannot know whether the inspired
words of God are perfectly preserved today, then they should be
chagrined, but why cannot they rejoice with those who by faith are
certain they have all of Gods inspired words and know exactly where all
the inspired words are preservedin the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Scriptures underlying the KJV? Peter Masters of Spurgeons Tabernacle
though not in total agreement with our position on VPP was at least
75
honest enough to acknowledge that our position is an honourable one11

unlike those anti-VPPists who maliciously label it foolish, extreme,
schismatic, heretical, cultic, and even Roman Catholic!
TRANSLATIONS
Not everyone today can read the Scriptures in the original
languages. There is thus a need for the Scriptures to be translated into the
common language of the people. The WCF shares this concern for the
Bible to be translated,
But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God,
who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in
the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated
into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the
Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an
acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures,
may have hope (I:VIII).
By the grace of God, the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have been
translated into many languages of the world. Insofar as the English
translation is concerned, we are thankful to the Lord for the KJV, the best
of all the good old versions of the Protestant Reformation. Today, the
KJV is being challenged by the many modern versions that seek to usurp
its rightful place as the only English version that can rightly be called
the very Word of God. D A Waite, President of the Dean Burgon
Society, has given four reasons why the KJV is superior to all the other
English translations available in the world today. In his ground-breaking
book, Defending the King James Bible: A Fourfold Superiority, he argued
that the KJV is superior in terms of its (1) Texts, (2) Translators, (3)
Technique, and (4) Theology.12 Even non-fundamentalists are hailing the
goodness of this grand old version in terms of its translational accuracy
and literary beauty.13 The KJV was not only a translation that transformed
a nation; it was the translation that transformed the world literarily
speaking.14
Perfectly Flawless Translation?
At this juncture, let me deal with Calvary Jurongs report on what
the Rev Charles Seet wrote concerning my response to Gary Hudsons
Questions for the KJV-Only Cult. Calvary Jurongs report is skewed in
such a way as to make me look like (1) I am defending a perfectly
flawless Bible translation (underlining in the original), and (2) I believe
76
that there was no Word of God prior to 1611.15 The account totally left
out my lengthy answer to Gary Hudsons question. Without giving the
proper context, it thus misleads the reader. Allow me to produce in full
my answer so that the reader may judge for himself whether Calvary
Jurong has or has not represented me correctly in its Non-VPP paper.
(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in order to
call it the word of God? If so, how do we know it is perfect? If not,
why do some limit the word of God to only one 17th Century English
translation? Where was the word of God prior to 1611? [Note: This
was Gary Hudsons question, and not Charles Seets questioning of me as
painted out in the Calvary Jurong report thereby making me look like a
Ruckmanite.]
[Answer] We believe that the King James Version (or Authorised Version)
of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two
providentially preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and
Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no equal
among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine
job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the
Authorised Version and say This is the Word of God! while at the same
time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying
original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture
with Scripture. (The Dean Burgon Society, Articles of Faith, section
II.A.)
Every Bible translation can be legitimately called the Word of God if it is
true and faithful to the original and traditional text. We refuse to consider
heretical Bibles like the New World Translation of the Jehovahs Witnesses
as the Word of God. We also reject as unreliable all Bible versions (eg
NIV, TEV, TLB, CEV ) that are a result of the dynamic equivalence
method of translation, and those (eg RSV, NASB, ESV ) that cast doubt
and/or omit verses based on corrupted readings of the Alexandrian or
Westcott-Hort Text, and consider them unsafe for use.
Where was the Word of God prior to 1611? Well, the Word of God is found
in the divinely inspired and providentially preserved Traditional and
Preserved Text of OT and NT Scriptures used and recognised by the
Church down through the ages, and in all the faithful and reliable
translations that were based on those Texts, viz, Martin Luthers German
Bible (1522), William Tyndales Bible (1525), Myles Coverdales Bible
(1535), The Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539-41), and The
Geneva Bible (1557-60).
77

It is significant to note that prior to the KJV, the English translations were
largely individual efforts. The KJV on the other hand is a corporate work.
In the words of the translators, the KJV was not produced to make a bad
one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones
one principal good one. For this purpose and with such devotion the KJV
translation committee was formed, and they were careful to assemble
together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest
many things haply might escape them.
The King James Bible is a product of the 16 th Century Protestant
Reformation. The providential hand of God was clearly at work at the time
of the Reformation not only in the separation of the true church from the
false church, but also in the invention of the printing press, the renewed
interest in the study of the original languages, the publication of the Textus
Receptus which finally culminated in the translation of the KJV. These
products of the Protestant Reformation bear the divine imprimatur.
God holds His people in every age responsible for using the divinely
inspired and preserved original texts and only the faithful and accurate
translations of His Word. The KJV-only position (not Ruckmanism) does
not limit the Word of God to only one 17th Century English Translation, but
advocates that the KJV, being still the most accurate English translation
based on the purest texts, should be the only Bible used by Englishspeaking Christians today. To use other Bibles when the best is clearly
available would be to neglect our responsibility.16
Can the pastor and the elders of Calvary Jurong who object to my
defence of the KJV kindly let me know which part of the above answer is
not in line with the B-P stand on the KJV? Now the Rev Seet might
possibly take issue with the word purest (meaning the best, without any
mistake) to refer to the underlying texts of the KJV, for he believes that
they are only closest (since he considers the underlying texts to contain
scribal errors especially in places where there are absolutely none, eg,
2 Chron 22:2).17 It needs to be made known that I have no qualms with
the word closest if it is taken to mean that (1) the Bible is entirely
(100%) preserved and not just essentially (99.9%) preserved, (2) the
Bible is verbally preserved and not just conceptually preserved, and (3)
the Bible is indeed infallible and inerrant not just in the past but also
today. But they speak adversely of those who take the Dean Burgon
Oath,18 who believe that the Bible they have in their hands today have (1)
no lost words and (2) no mistakes not only in its saving truths, but also in
its numbers, names, dates, and places. Insofar as English versions are
concerned, the KJV is the closest to the purest Bible in the original
78
languages that our all-powerful God has supernaturally preserved and

His Spirit-indwelt Church has faithfully received throughout the ages.
Perfect in the Original Languages
Since the Rev Seet has allowed his personal correspondence with
me to go public,19 allow me then to share my email of June 27, 2002,
written in reply to his concerns about why I switched from addressing a
so-called perfectly flawless translation (Hudsons caricature) to a
perfectly flawless text in the original languages (ie, the Hebrew, Aramaic
and Greek words underlying the KJV):20
[Charles Seet] 1) I think some may take issue with the wording of the
first paragraph,21 as it implies that the texts underlying the KJV
translation are not only closest to the original (as stated in our
positional statement) but they are in fact virtual photocopies of the
autographs, since the word flawless means without defect. Actually
the first paragraph misses the point of the question, which is about
perfectly flawless Bible translation (not text).
[My Reply] Yes, I am quite aware of this (viz, that the [ie, Hudsons]
question had to do with translation not text). I did not want to be drawn into
Hudsons trap and fallacious reasoning. That is why I redefined the question
and redrew the rules of engagement. I wanted to state our understanding of
the text at the outset before going on to address the matter of translation
which I did in my 2nd paragraph.
You are also correct to conclude that my statement meant that the texts
underlying the KJV may be considered virtual photocopies of the
autographs. The word closest as used in our position statement quoting
the Dean Burgon Society should not be taken to mean that we only have a
99% pure text (1% error). I believe God has inspired and preserved His
Word and words 100%. I can see how some may understand the word
closest to mean not perfect or exactly the same, ie, we may have most
of or essentially Gods words, but not all of Gods words in the texts
underlying our KJV. I think we need to understand the context in which the
statement was phrased. Westcott and Hort puffed up their cut-up Greek text
as being closest to the original since they based it on the 4th century
Alexandrian manuscripts, which manuscripts Dean Burgon has dismissed as
most corrupt. Our use of the term closest seeks to correct and
counteract Westcott and Horts view on the identity of the true text. The
term closest also distinguishes between the autograph (past and lost)
and the apograph (present and existing). We do not deny that the autograph
and apograph though distinct are the same. The paper may be different, but
the contents are the same.
79
Would the Rev Seet now kindly let me know in what way was my
reply to him in defence of the KJV heretical? It was quite clear to him
from the outset that I was not addressing a perfectly flawless
translation but a perfectly flawless text. Knowing this, why is he
giving people the impression that I am actually talking about a perfectly
flawless translation? The LIE is spread that Jeffrey Khoo believes in
post-canonical inspirationthat the KJV was given by inspiration.
Why such deceit?
Another thing that baffles me is why the Rev Seet who claims to be
strongly supportive of the KJV against the modern versions would launch
such a campaign against VPP which is a precious biblical doctrine that
actually protects and preserves the KJV? Why is all this done despite his
assurance in 2004 that VPP should not be discriminated against? Why
does he call me extreme if there should be no discrimination? Why is
he and his supporters trying to silence VPP which safeguards the KJV
which is the official Bible of the B-P Church since its founding? Why are
anti-VPP/KJV men from BJU allowed to speak at his pulpit, but a ban is
placed on certain B-P pastors who are VPP/KJV-defenders, even calling
them extreme and schismatic? Why are enemies of the KJV
promoted, but friends of the KJV cut down?
INSPIRATION, PRESERVATION, TRANSLATIONS:

FOUR VIEWS
Is the B-P Churchs stand on the KJV a matter of preference or a
matter of principle or doctrine? We believe our use of the KJV and our
defence of its underlying original language texts (words) is a matter of
principle or doctrine. As a matter of principle or doctrine, our KJV
defence is not based on convenience but conviction. There are four views
on the issue of inspiration, preservation, and translations. Of course, there
are different shades of views in between, but which view is the biblically
acceptable view?
Which position ought we to take as B-Ps? Biblically and
historically, we have taken the fideistic (faith) position which is the
Reformed and Fundamentalist position on Biblical inspiration and
preservation, and the KJV as the best translation of the English Bible:
So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom
10:17). Only the faith position has any biblical basis resting on Psalm
12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, John 10:35, 1 Peter 1:25, and many other
80
passages.27 The various anti- or non-VPP positions have no biblical

support whatsoever.
Regardless of the absence of biblical support for their non-VPP
stance which is based on non-Scriptural and subjectively interpreted
evidence, certain ones have accused FEBC of changing the doctrinal
stand of the B-P Church on the Bible and the KJV. If a person would take
VIEW
Rationalistic 22
(Liberal)
QUESTION
Eclectic 23
(NeoEvangelical)
Deistic 24
(NeoFundamental)
Fideistic 25
(Reformed &
Fundamental)
Inspiration
100%, VPI?
No
Yes & No
Yes
Yes
Preservation
100%, VPP?
No
No
No
Yes
Infallibility &
Inerrancy?
Nowhere
Autographs
only/partially
Autographs only Autographs &

Apographs
Bible Today?
Imperfect
Imperfect
Imperfect
Perfect
Biblical Basis? No
No
No
Yes (eg, Matt

5:18)
What
Preserved?
Nothing
Doctrines not
words
Doctrines not
words
Words &
doctrines
Words Lost?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Discrepancies
in Bible (eg, 2
Chron 22:2)?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Westcott &
Hort?
For
For
Neither for nor

against
Against
English
Version?
RSV/NRSV &
modernistic
versions only
NIV & modern NKJV & NASV Only KJV 26

versions mainly mainly
81
a step back and look at the whole controversy objectively, he will see that
FEBC is actually strengthening and not changing the original KJV
position of the B-P Church. The B-P Church has always used the KJV as
the Word of God from the beginning. Our KJV position is strengthened
by the doctrine of VPP which argues for the 100% purity of the Hebrew
and Greek Scriptures underlying the KJV over against the corrupt
Westcott and Hort texts behind the modern English versions which are
filled with errors.
Who better to speak for the B-P faith than the founder of the
Singapore B-P movement and FEBC himselfthe Rev Dr Timothy
Towwho believes without equivocation the special providential
preservation of Scripture, and a 100% perfect Bible without any
mistake?28 Rev Dr Timothy Towthe only theologian at the founding of
the B-P movementis supported by Dr S H Towfounding leader of the
B-P Church in Singapore and senior pastor of the Calvary churches
who believes likewise, and has identified for us where precisely this
100% perfect Bible without any mistake is:
1. Question: Can we identify these texts?
2. Answer: Absolutely. Our great God did not leave Himself without
witness, but preserved perfectly a body of MSS: the Masoretic Hebrew
Old Testament Text and the Received Greek New Testament Text
(Textus Receptus). From these perfectly preserved copies of Gods
inspired, inerrant, infallible Scriptures, is derived our KJB.
3. What is VPP? V is Verbal, meaning word for word (Websters
Dictionary). P is Plenary, meaning complete or absolute
(Websters Dictionary). P is Preservation meaning kept from
corruption or error.
4. VPP of Scripture refers to the supernatural and special providential
care of God over the ages (Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I,
VIII; see also Ps 12:6,7; Matt 5:18, 24:35; 1 Pet 1:25), safeguarding
the transmission of the MSS by scribes or copyists, so that the body of
texts (Masoretic Hebrew OT and Received Greek NT) have been kept
pure as the good tree giving us the good fruit, the KJB.
5. As the attacks on Gods Word increase in intensity, Gods faithful
remnant people also increase and intensify in their loyalty to Gods
Word without which the Gospels entire foundation would collapse.
6. The inspired and preserved Word of God for the Bible-Presbyterian
Church is upheld by a threefold cord which cannot be broken,
82

namely: (i) Constitution 4.2.1, (ii) the VPP of Gods Word, (iii) the
KJB, the Reformation Bible.29
Dr S H Tow went on to issue this pertinent warning:

Mark these words: The present attack on the VPP will lead ultimately to a
denial and betrayal of the KJB. This is a prediction worth watching. God
bless all readers with spiritual discernment.30
Notes
A Statement on the Theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP), Life
Bible-Presbyterian Weekly, September 25, 2005.
2
Explanation of Our Non-VPP Stand, presented on Sunday, November 6,
2005 to the congregation of Calvary Jurong B-P Church by Rev James Chan Lay
Seng, Pastor of Calvary Jurong B-P Church.
3
At this juncture, it needs to be made known that prior to putting forth his
name as a subscriber to the Statement of Clarification in which the subscribers
agree that the KJV is the very Word of God and fully reliable, the Rev Charles
Seet in August 2002 wrote an articleHow I Understand the Preservation of the
Word of Godto point out what he considers to be translational errors in
certain parts of the English KJV.
4
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, sv autographa
(emphasis mine).
5
William F Orr, The Authority of the Bible as Reflected in the Proposed
Confession of 1967, as quoted by Letis, The Majority Text, 174 (emphasis
mine).
6
Myron J Houghton, The Preservation of Scripture, Faith Pulpit (August
1999): 1-2.
7
Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997),
103.
8
Inspiration and Translations of the Holy Scriptures, a resolution passed
by the Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC), at its 49th AGM on
Octrober 29, 2005 held at Life B-P Church, Singapore.
9
Explanation of Our Non-VPP Stand, 13.
10
Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2001),
125-6. The ICCC resolution was originally published in the Far Eastern Beacon.
11
It is reported in the October 2, 2005 True Life B-P Church Weekly (ed
Timothy Tow) that Dr Peter Masters did not think our VPP position to be in any
way heretical, but indeed an honourable one. He also gave unreserved support
and endorsement of FEBC, May I say that the ministry of FEBC under Dr
Timothy Tow is a remarkable manifestation of the blessing of God in
maintaining inerrancy, fundamentals, evangelism, sound hermeneutics and
biblical separation. Your work is magnificent and encouraging in the highest
1
83

degree. In another letter, Dr Masters reaffirmed his remarks on the VPP of
Scripture that it is a sincerely held view aimed at safeguarding the Word, and
promoting integrity. Its advocates seek to proclaim and adhere to the Gospel and
the historic doctrines of the faith. They seek to preserve an excellent translation
of the Bible, and to oppose the corrupt W & H based translations the position
is honourable. It is certainly not base, self-seeking, unfaithful, or heretical in the
sense of denying any doctrine of the Christian faith.
12
D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 2nd ed (Collingswood: Bible
For Today, 1996).
13
For example, Leland Ryken wrote, The KJV is the greatest English Bible
translation ever produced. Its style combines simplicity and majesty as the
original requires, though it inclines toward the exalted. Its rhythms are
matchless. The Word of God in English (Wheaton: Crossway, 2002), 51.
14
See Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James
Bible (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2001).
15
16
KJV Q&A, July 31, 2002 draft [words in square brackets not in
original]. It is no secret that the Rev Charles Seet together with Rev Colin Wong
declared that they could no longer take the Dean Burgon Oath at the FEBC
faculty meeting of October 29, 2002. Rev Seet handed in his resignation letter to
FEBC on November 15, 2002. In it he requested not to be represented as a
member of the FEBC faculty in any publication that is issued by the college from
now on. I respect his decision, and take full responsibility for all that I have
written in defence of the KJV and its underlying texts. Rev Seet has every
freedom to disagree with me, but he and his friends have no right to misrepresent
and malign me and those at FEBC who defend the KJV and more importantly the
Biblical doctrine of VPP and the perfection of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
words behind the KJV.
17
Charles Seet, A Positional Paper on the Doctrine of Inspiration and
Preservation of the Holy Scriptures, http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sbseet/
position.htm, accessed on February 3, 2006.
18
The Dean Burgon Oath states, I swear in the name of the triune God
Father, Son and Holy Spiritthat the Bible is none other than the voice of Him
that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it,
every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of
the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it
more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the
throne, faultless, unerring, supreme. So help me God. Amen.
19
20
See Jeffrey Khoo, Non-Ruckmanite Answers to Anti-KJV Questions, at
http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/KJBible/answers.htm.
84

In an earlier draft of KJV-Only Q&A dated July 18, 2002, I answered
Hudsons question in the following way: The question is rather mischievous. Let
us rephrase it: Can a flawed Bible ever be deemed the Word of God? Can a
perfect God ever give His people a less than perfect Bible? The answer is
obvious. The Bible is Gods Word, and if God is perfect, His Word must be no
less perfect. God assures us that His Word is very pure (Ps 119:40), perfect (Ps
19:7), true and righteous altogether (Ps 19:9). All, not some or most, of
Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16).
22
B F Westcott and F J A Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in the
Original Greek (New York: Harper and Brothers, , 1882); Kurt Aland and
Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987);
Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1992).
23
D A Carson, The King James Version Debate (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1979); James R White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis:
Bethany, 1995).
24
James B Williams, ed, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man
(Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald, 1999); James B Williams and Randolf
Shaylor, eds, Gods Word in Our Hands (Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald,
2003); Roy E Beacham and Kevin T Bauder, eds, One Bible Only? (Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 2001).
25
Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword; D A Waite, Defending the King
James Bible (Collingswood: Bible For Today, 1996); Timothy Tow and Jeffrey
Khoo, A Theology for Every Christian: Knowing God and His Word (Singapore,
FEBC Press, 1998).
26
A Doctrinal Positional Statement of Life B-P Church, states, We do
employ the KJV alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading,
preaching, and teaching of the English Bible. 50 Years Building His Kingdom,
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church Golden Jubilee Magazine, 2000, 67.
27
See George Skariah, The Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of
the Holy Scriptures, ThD dissertation, Far Eastern Bible College, 2005.
28
Timothy Tow, Gods Special Providential Care of the Text of Scripture,
Bible Witness, October-December 2002, 3-4.
29
S H Tow, Gospel SafeguardVPP, Calvary Pandan B-P Church
Weekly, January 1, 2006. See also his book, Beyond Versions: A Biblical
Perspective of Modern English Bibles (Singapore: King James Productions,
1998).
30
Ibid.
21
85
14
CANON, TEXTS, AND WORDS
Lost and Found or Preserved and Identified?
Jeffrey Khoo
INTRODUCTION
The Judeo-Christian Bible comprising the Old Testament (OT) and
the New Testament (NT) Scriptures is usually discussed in terms of its
respective canons, texts, and words in the original languages. As seen in
our previous discussion,1 there is no issue with the divine inspiration of
the Scriptures in the original writings or autographs. The issue today
involves the transmission of the Scriptures from the time they were
originally written until the present day. Since the autographs, the original
scripts written by the original writers themselves, no longer exist, having
long perished, can Bible-believers today say they have in their possession
the very same Scriptures or Words that God had originally given by
divine inspiration?
Many modern pastors and scholars deny that there exists such an
infallible and inerrant Bible today. Although they may believe in the
Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI), they do not believe in the Verbal
Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures. In their minds, the
inspiration of the Scripture is a miracle from God, but the preservation of
Scripture is mans work without any special superintendence or
intervention by God.2 Such a view is held nowadays by those who call
themselves Reformed. The Reformed pastors and teachers of today
actually speak in a Bibliological tongue that is strange to the ears of the
Reformed scholars and Reformation saints. This strange understanding of
the Bible that is far removed from the Reformed faith concerns looking at
the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible only in terms of (1) its divine
inspiration and not divine preservation, and (2) its autographs and not
apographs.3
86
Canon, Texts, and Words
In view of the current fallacious paradigm and ignorant confusion

over the nature of the Sacred Scriptures of yesterday and today, it is the
intention of this paper to recapture the true Biblical teaching and
Reformed thinking of the Scriptures, that (1) the verbally inspired
Scriptures are verbally preserved by God and God alone; and (2) the
supremely authoritative Scriptures are the extant infallible apographs and
not the non-existent autographs. As such (1) the inspired Scriptures were
never lost but always preserved without any corruption or missing words;
(2) the Sacred Scriptures are always infallible and inerrant, and
supremely authoritative not only in the days of the Reformation, but also
todaySola Scriptura!
This paper seeks to identify where and what the infallible and
inerrant Scriptures are in terms of their Canon, Texts, and Words.
CANON
The word canonicity comes from the Greek kanon which means
a straight rod, or a measuring rule. When applied to the Scriptures, it
means the standard list of divinely inspired booksthe Word of God
which serves as the only authoritative basis for the faith and practice of
the Church.
Old Testament Canon
By the time of Jesus Christ, the OT Canon was already completed
and identified. The Jews regarded the 39 books of the Tanakhthe
Hebrew OT Canon comprising the Torah (Law), the Nabiim (Prophets),
and the Kethubim (Writings) to be nothing short of the direct utterance of
the Most Highabsolutely infallible and supremely authoritative. These
39 books were recognised as the divinely inspired books for they came
during the period of Biblical revelationthe period between Moses
(1450 BC) and Malachi (450 BC).
The identification of the OT Canon is given by the Author of the
Canon Himselfthe Lord Jesus Christin Luke 24:44,
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I
was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms/Writings make up

the 39 books of the OT Canon that Jesus regarded as the very Word of
God. Note that there is no mention of the Apocryphathe 14 books4
87
OLD TESTAMENT CANON AND BOOKS

Canon
Books
Period
Genesis
Exodus
Torah (Law)
Leviticus
15th Century BC
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Nabi'im (Prophets)
88
Joshua
15th - 14th Century BC
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
6th Century BC
Hosea
8th Century BC
Joel
9th Century BC
Amos
8th Century BC
Obadiah
9th Century BC
Jonah
8th Century BC
Micah
8th Century BC
Nahum
7th Century BC
OLD TESTAMENT CANON AND BOOKS

Canon
Nabi'im (Prophets)
Kethubim (Writings)
Books
Period
Habakkuk
7th Century BC
Zephaniah
7th Century BC
Haggai
6th Century BC
Zechariah
6th Century BC
Malachi
5th Century BC
Psalms
Job
Proverbs
10th Century BC
Ruth
Song of Solomon
10th Century BC
Ecclesiastes
10th Century BC
Lamentations
6th Century BC
Esther
5th Century BC
Daniel
Ezra
Nehemiah
5th Century BC
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
written during the 400 silent years of the inter-testamental period when
there was no prophetic voice until John the Baptiser came onto the scene.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) acknowledged the
traditional and ecclesiastical view that the apocryphal books were not
89
divinely inspired but merely human books with some historical value, but
no spiritual or doctrinal value whatsoever:
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are
no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the
Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than
other human writings (I:III).
It is a Biblical fact that God had intended a fixed number of 39

divinely inspired OT books to serve as the supremely authoritative
Standard of faith and life for the Church. If there is such a divinely
ordained set of canonical books for the OT, surely a similar set of
canonical books can be expected for the NT.
New Testament Canon
The Lord Jesus Christ in fulfilment of the Tanakhthe OT Canon
was born of a virgin, lived a sinlessly perfect life, died on the cross for
the sins of the world, was buried, and on the third day rose from the dead
just as the OT Scriptures had predicted. His life and work on earth
marked the beginning of the New Covenant period of a better
administration of the Covenant of Grace which called for an NT Canon to
regulate the life and faith of New Covenant saints.
At Pentecost, God did not present the Bible to the New Covenant
Church as a complete whole. The NT Canon like the OT Canon required
a period of time for its inscripturation and completion. This period of
divinely inspired inscripturation occurred during the time of the Apostles
of Jesus Christ. It began with the Gospel of Matthew in AD 40 and ended
with the Revelation of John in AD 90.
Since Jesus gave no explicit word concerning the number of NT
books and their specific identities, how did the Church finally arrive at
the 27 books? It is a question that needs to be answered today especially
when the Church is being attacked by pop-modernism that questions the
authenticity and certainty of the 27 books that form our NT Canon. Dan
Browns bestsellerThe Da Vinci Codefor instance speaks of the
newly discovered Gnostic Gospels of Nag Hammadi as the authentic and
authoritative NT books. Brown dismissed the Four Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John in the NT Canon today as fabricated accounts of
the life of Christ produced in the time of Emperor Constantine (4th
century AD). According to him, these Four Gospels should be rejected
90
and replaced by the Gnostic Gospels.5 In other words, the true Gospels
were once lost but are now found!
This begs the question of whether the Church has been reading from
the wrong Gospels all these centuries. Were the true books about the life
of Christ lost very early and now found? Or were the true books the ones
that God has preserved from the beginning, and received by the Church
from the time they were written until today? By virtue of Gods promise
of the preservation of His words in Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 24:35,
John 10:35, and 1 Peter 1:23-25, we believe the latter to be truethat the
all-powerful Author of the Christian Scriptures has supernaturally and
continuously preserved His words throughout the ages, and kept them
pure and uncorrupted, available and accessible to His Church, so that His
people might appeal to them as their supremely authoritative Canon or
rule of faith and practice without any doubt or uncertainty.
Nevertheless, Browns pop-modernistic attack on the Scriptures
does great damage to the testimony of the Scriptures and of the Church.
Ben Witherington III highlighted the serious implications of Browns
canonical-critical book:
The issue of canonwhat books constitute the final authority for
Christiansis no small matter. If the critics are correct, then Christianity
must indeed be radically reinterpreted, just as they suggest. If they are
wrong, traditional Christians have their work cut out for them, because
many seekers remain skeptical of claims to biblical authority.6
To put it bluntly: No Canon, no Christ; no Canon, no Gospel!

Was the Biblical Canon falsified and the Christian Gospel
fabricated? There was in fact no orthodox fabrication of the Gospels as
posited by Brown but the very opposite. History reveals the unorthodox
corruption of the Scriptures by Alexandrian heretics who denied and
attacked the full deity of Christ.7 It is a fact that shortly after the inspired
NT books were completed, spurious books claiming inspiration were also
written (eg, Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas,
Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Andrew etc).8 The contents
of these false books do not fit the nature of divinely inspired writ. They
are filled with myths and even blasphemous stories of Christ. The born
again and Spirit indwelt believer can tell straightaway that these books
are not of God (John 16:13, 1 Cor 2:12-14, 1 John 2:27). The early
believers had long rejected them as spurious.
91
So how was the NT Canon arrived at? The Canon was arrived at by
the ecclesiastical consensus of Gods people who were indwelt and led by
the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The Council of Carthage (AD 397), chaired
by the pre-eminent early church father and theologianAugustine
identified the sacred books by name. There were exactly 27 of them.
NEW TESTAMENT CANON AND BOOKS
Canon
Gospels
History
Epistles
92
Books
Date
Matthew
AD 40
Mark
AD 45
Luke
AD 45-55
John
AD 70-90
Acts
AD 62-64
Romans
AD 55
1 Corinthians
AD 54
2 Corinthians
AD 55
Galatians
AD 49
Ephesians
AD 60
Philippians
AD 60
Colossians
AD 60
1 Thessalonians
AD 50-51
2 Thessalonians
AD 50-51
1 Timothy
AD 62
2 Timothy
AD 63
Titus
AD 62
NEW TESTAMENT CANON AND BOOKS

Canon
Epistles
Apocalypse
Books
Date
Philemon
AD 60
Hebrews
AD 60-65
James
AD 40-44
1 Peter
AD 63
2 Peter
AD 63-64
1 John
AD 80-90
2 John
AD 80-90
3 John
AD 80-90
Jude
AD 60-70
Revelation
AD 90
The Canon of NT books above was no innovation, but an official

statement of what the Church by ecclesiastical consensus had already
accepted as inspired Scripture by virtue of its divine origination. The
WCF states:
whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet
witness by and with the Word in our hearts (I:V).
The NT Canon is under attack today like never before. Biblebelieving Christians ought not to be nave but to put on the whole armour
of God (Eph 6:11-18). We ought to realise that truth is ascertained by
93
spiritual knowledge, and we need to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us
into all truth (John 16:13).
TEXTS
The texts of the Holy Scriptures refer to the copies of the Scriptures
which come either in handwritten or in printed form.
Old Testament Text
The OT Scriptures were first given to IsraelGods chosen nation.
Romans 3:1-2 tells us that God had committed to the Jews the
safekeeping and copying of the Holy Scriptures. Knowing well the divine
nature of the Scriptures, that the words of the sacred pages were the very
words of the Almighty God, they copied the Scriptures with great
precision and accuracy employing the following rules:
(1) The parchment must be made from the skin of clean animals; must be
prepared by a Jew only, and the skins must be fastened together by
strings taken from clean animals.
(2) Each column must be no less than 48 and no more than 60 lines. The
entire copy must be first lined, and if three words were written in it
without the line, the copy was worthless.
(3) The ink must be of no other color than black, and it must be prepared
according to a special recipe.
(4) No word or letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have
an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud
each word before writing it.
(5) He must reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for
God, and must wash his whole body before writing the word
Jehovah, lest the holy name be contaminated.
(6) Strict rules were given concerning the forms of the letters, spaces
between letters, words, and sections, the use of the pen, the color of the
parchment, etc.
(7) The revision of a roll must be made within 30 days after the work was
finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet
condemned the sheet; if three mistakes were found on any page, the
entire manuscript was condemned.
(8) Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter were omitted,
an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another, the manuscript
was condemned and destroyed at once.9
94
These very strict rules of transcription show how precious the Jews
had regarded the inspired words of God, and how precise their copying of
these inspired words must have been. Such strict practices in copying
give us strong encouragement to believe that we have the real Old
Testament, the same one which our Lord had and which was originally
given by inspiration of God.10
The present confusion in identifying the Hebrew Scriptures is not
with the traditional copies which God has kept pure without corruption
by His special providence, but with the printed editions of the Hebrew
Text which comes in two types: (1) the Hebrew Masoretic TextBen
Chayyim (1524-25), and (2) the Biblia HebraicaKittel (1937) and
Stuttgart (1967/77).
The Ben Chayyim Text is the faithful text that follows the
traditional and providentially preserved manuscripts. This Hebrew Text
underlying the KJV is totally infallible and inerrant. The Ben Chayyim
Text is published today by the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS). TBS
considers the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text to be the definitive Hebrew
Text for today.11
The Kittel and Stuttgart texts, on the other hand, display a critical
apparatus that is filled with conjectural emendations that come from
modern scholarship. These modern critical texts are the texts that
underlie the NASV, NIV, and NKJV. The Kittel and Stuttgart texts
contain 20,000-30,000 suggested corrections or changes to the OT
Scriptures.12 Many of these recommended corrections are unwarranted
because they come from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), or the Samaritan
Pentateuch which trace their origins to heretical sects (eg, Essenes and
Samaritans, cf John 4:22), and dubious translations like the Septuagint
(LXX).13 The textual-critical apparatuses found in these critical texts
cause the Bible student to doubt Gods Word. They cause him to question
whether he has indeed all the words of Scripture and whether the words
of Scripture can be trusted as being altogether truethe very words of
Godverbally inspired and preserved (Matt 5:18)? From personal
experience, having practised the textual-critical methods of modern
scholarship at both Bible College and Seminary levels, I can testify that
such critical devices in the modern texts not only cast doubt on Gods
Word, but also distract from a reverent and faithful study to a prideful
and judgmental study of the Holy Scriptures.
95
In light of the Biblical doctrine of the divine, verbal and plenary

preservation of the Scriptures, Bible-believing students would do well to
stick to the providentially preserved line of traditional Hebrew
manuscripts and text which is the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Textthe
Text that underlies the time-tested and time-honoured KJVover against
the new and critical line of modernistic texts that are behind all the
modern English versions.
New Testament Text
The NT Scriptures were written by the Apostles of Jesus Christ
under divine inspiration (2 Tim 3:16). The NT Scriptures were then
committed to the care of the NT Church comprising born again believers
who were loyal to both the Living Word and the Written Word. Just like
the OT Scripture, the Lord has also promised to preserve the inspired
Greek words of the NT Scripture. Three times Jesus said, Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matt 24:35,
Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33).
The NT autographs in time became apographs for they were copied
and circulated to all the NT churches for their meditation, application and
edification. As the Church grew, the copies multiplied. There are over
5000 extant NT copies today. These 5000 plus manuscripts are classified
under two categories: Alexandrian and Byzantine.14
TWO STREAMS OF TEXTS AND VERSIONS
Text
Preserved
Byzantine/Majority/Received Text
Every word preserved
Perverted
Alexandrian/Minority/W H Text
Many words excised
Thrust
Spirit of the 16th Century

Reformation
Spirit of 19th-20th Century

Modernism
Translators
Martyrs and Reformers-Wycliffe,

Money-Makers, Liberals,
Tyndale, Coverdale, and KJV men Ecumenists, and Neo-Evangelicals
Technique
Verbal Equivalence-word for word

translation
Dynamic Equivalence-thought for

thought interpretation
Translation
Protestant Reformation Bible-the

AV/KJV is the best. Vital
doctrines fully preserved
Ecumenical and Modern Versions.

Vital doctrines (virgin birth, deity
of Christ, blood of Christ, Trinity,
ecclesiastical separation) attacked
96
The Byzantine manuscripts come from the region of Byzantium or

Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern or Greek Empire (AD 2951453). The majority of the 5000 plus extant NT copies are Byzantine
manuscripts. These manuscripts were faithfully copied and continuously
used by the Church. They reflect uniform readings. Although there were
minor variations, these were easily rectified by a simple comparison of
the manuscripts.15 The Lord has certainly kept these manuscripts pure and
uncorrupted throughout the centuries. The Church recognised them to be
the inspired and preserved manuscripts, and received them as the Holy
Scriptures. These handwritten copies were finally put into print in the 15th
century upon the invention of the printing press. During the Protestant
Reformation, the Lord specially raised up Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza
to prepare the Byzantine manuscripts for print. The printed Greek text
eventually became known as the Textus Receptusthe Text received by
all. This is the Greek text that underlies the KJV and all the other
Reformation translations.16
The Alexandrian manuscripts come from Alexandria, Egypt. These
manuscripts are in the minority, and they reveal a corrupt hand.17 The
most notorious of these minority manuscripts are the Codex Sinaiticus
and the Codex Vaticanus. The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by
Tischendorf in St Catherines monastery in Egypt in 1844 while the
Codex Vaticanus was kept in the Vatican library and found in 1481. Both
these manuscripts were dated to about AD 350. Since they were such old
manuscripts, and regarded by Westcott and Hort to be closest to the
autographs, they were hailed as the best manuscripts in existence.
Westcott and Hort then proceeded to revise the Textus Receptus based on
their textual-critical theory that the older, harder, and shorter readings of
the Alexandrian manuscripts were better. In 1881, they published their
new but mutilated text which changed the traditional Received Text in
nearly 10,000 places.18
God did not allow such an attack on His preserved words to go
unchallenged. He raised up a most worthy scholar in Dean Burgon to
expose the corruptions of the Alexandrian manuscripts on which Westcott
and Hort built their revised Greek Text. Burgon, by a diligent study of the
primary sources and a careful investigation of the facts, rightly judged the
Alexandrian manuscripts to be among the
most scandalously corrupt copies extant: exhibit the most shamefully
mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with: have become, by
97

whatever process (for their history is wholly unknown), the depositories of
the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional
perversions of Truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the
Word of God.19
Since 1881, the corrupt Westcott-Hort text has unfortunately

become the standard text for modern translations of the Bible.20 Are the
Alexandrian manuscripts so reliable? The Alexandrian manuscripts and
the Westcott-Hort text that underlie the modern versions of the English
Bible are today being questioned by their very editorsKurt Aland and
Barbara Alandwho wrote, In the twentieth century the papyri have
eroded the dominance of the uncials, and a group of minuscules presently
under study promises to diminish it further.21 One such papyrus is the
Magdalen GR17 or Jesus Papyrus which consists of three fragments
containing Matthew 26:7-8, 26:10, 14, 15, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33. It is a very
early, first century (AD 60) manuscript. The last four words of Matthew
26:22 (legein auto hekastos auton) in the GR17 agree with the Textus
Receptus over against the Westcott-Hort and modern critical texts (legein
auto heis hekastos).22 Another evidence of the antiquity and authenticity
of the Textus Receptus comes from the Chester Beatty Papyri which are
early 3 rd century fragments and they agree with the Traditional or
Byzantine Text. Papyrus p75 contains the ascension of Christ (Luke
24:51) which was omitted in the Westcott-Hort Text and modern versions
like the NASV.23 Now, the 26th edition of the critical text of Nestle and
Aland has put the ascension verse back into the original text bringing it to
conformity with the inspired and preserved Textus Receptus underlying
the KJV.24 All such findings confirm Dean Burgons observation all
alongthe Alexandrian/Minority/Westcott-Hort texts are the heretically
corrupted texts, but the Byzantine/Majority/Received texts are the
divinely preserved texts.25
It is tragic that in many Bible Colleges and Seminaries today, the
genealogy of the NT apographs follows the textual-critical paradigm
invented by Westcott and Hort who had introduced an imaginative
transmission history of the NT Text that is vastly different from the
Biblical truth of VPP that is taught by the Author of the Scriptures
Himself in His forever infallible and inerrant Word (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18,
24:35, John 10:35, 1 Pet 1:23-25). Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC),
despite fierce local and foreign opposition to her VPP belief, remains
steadfast in its defence of Gods forever infallible and inerrant Word. The
98
100% inspired Word of God are in the 100% preserved words of the
Hebrew Masoretic Text (Ben Chayyim), and the Greek Textus Receptus
(Stephanus, Beza, Scrivener) underlying the time-tested and timehonoured King James or Authorised Version.26
WORDS
The words of the Scriptures are important (Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4, Luke
4:4). God uses His words to communicate His Truth so that we might
know who and what He is and how we might be saved through Him. The
Bible clearly tells us that it is Gods written words (pasa grapheAll
Scripture) that are inspired (2 Tim 3:16), and from these inspired words
come all the doctrines that are sufficient and profitable for the spiritual
growth and maturity of the believer (2 Tim 3:17). The Bible also clearly
says that God Himself will preserve all His inspired words to the jot and
tittle without the loss of any word, letter or syllable (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18,
24:35).
Old Testament Words

Now if we have the inspired, infallible and inerrant words of God
today preserved in the traditional and Reformation Scriptures, then how
do we explain the differences or discrepancies found in the Bible
especially those found in 1 Samuel 13:1, 2 Chronicles 22:2, and many
other places. Can these be due to scribal errors?
Since God has preserved His inspired words to the last iota and no
words are lost but all kept pure and intact in the original language
Scriptures, we must categorically deny that our Bible contains any
mistake or error (scribal or otherwise). But it is sad that certain
evangelicals and fundamentalists would rather choose to deny the present
infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures by considering the
discrepancies found in 1 Samuel 13:1 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 and other
like passages to be actual instead of apparent discrepancies, and calling
them scribal errors.
A denial of the verbal preservation of the Scriptures will invariably
lead one to believe that some words of God have been lost and remain
lost leading to a scribal error view of the OT Scriptures. For instance,
W Edward Glenny denies that God has perfectly preserved His Word so
that no words have been lost. He says, The evidence from the OT text
suggests that such is not the case. We might have lost a few words 27
99
Based on his lost words view of the Bible, he was quick to point out
obvious discrepancies in the OT like 2 Chronicles 22:2. He
pontificates,
In 1 Chronicles 8:26 [sic], the KJV states that Ahaziah was twenty-two
when he began to reign; the parallel in 2 Chronicles 22:2 says that he began
to reign at the age of forty-two. ... These obvious discrepancies in the KJV
and the Hebrew manuscripts on which it is based show that none of them
perfectly preserved the inspired autographa.28
Now, know that 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads forty-two in the KJV and
RSV. A number of the modern versions like the NASV, NIV, and ESV
read twenty-two instead. So which is the original, inspired reading:
forty-two (in KJV, and RSV), or twenty-two (in NASV, NIV, and
ESV)? In making such a textual decision, we must have a perfect
standard, and that infallible and inerrant standard is the inspired and
preserved Hebrew Scripture, and not any translation ancient or modern.
It is significant to note that every single Hebrew manuscript reads
forty-two (arebbaim wushethaim) in 2 Chronicles 22:2. There is no
evidence of lost wordsevery word to the letter is preserved, and reads
precisely as forty-two as accurately translated in the KJV and RSV. If
every Hebrew manuscript reads forty-two in 2 Chronicles 22:2, then on
what basis do the NASV, NIV, and ESV change it to twenty-two? They
change forty-two to twenty-two on the basis of the Septuagint (LXX)
which is a Greek version of the Hebrew Scripture just like the NIV is an
English version of it. In other words, they use a version or translation to
correct the original Hebrew text! Should not it be the other way round?
Why do they do this? They do this because of their fallacious
assumption that (1) God did not preserve His words perfectly, (2) lost
words exist in the Hebrew text, and (3) 2 Chronicles 22:2 is an obvious
discrepancy (cf 2 Kgs 8:26). Thus, Glenny and all such non-VPPists are
quick to use a fallible translation (eg, LXX) to correct the infallible
Hebrew Text! This is no different from someone using the NIV today to
correct any part of the Hebrew Text according to his whim and fancy! But
Glenny calls it conjectural emendation which sounds scholarly but
colloquially it meansSuka only, change! Can a translation be more
inspired than or superior to the original language text? Can a translation
or version (whatever the language) be used to correct the Hebrew?
Glennys method of explaining such obvious discrepancies in the Bible
is troubling for it displays (1) a sceptical attitude towards the numerical
100
integrity of Gods Word, (2) a critical readiness to deny the present

inerrancy of Scripture in historical details, and (3) a lackadaisical
approach towards solving difficulties in the Bible by conveniently
dismissing such difficulties as scribal errors.
A godly approach is one that presupposes the present infallibility
and inerrancy of Gods Word not only when it speaks on salvation, but
also when it speaks on history, geography or science. Let God be true,
but every man a liar (Rom 3:4). Such a godly approach to difficult
passages is seen in Robert J Sargent who, by comparing (not correcting)
Scripture with Scripture, offered two possible solutions to the so-called
problem or error in 2 Chronicles 22:2. Sargent suggested that fortytwo could be either (1) Ahaziahs years counted from the beginning of
the dynasty founded by Omri, or (2) the year in which Ahaziah was
actually seated as king though anointed as one at twenty-two (2 Kgs
8:26).29 Whatever the answer may be, the truth and fact is: the inspired
and preserved Hebrew reading in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is forty-two and
not twenty-two, and no man has the right to change or correct Gods
Word by conjectural emendation, taking heed to the serious warning
not to add to or subtract from the Holy Scriptures (Rev 22:18-19).
Now, let us look at the next text which is 1 Samuel 13:1 which the
KJV translates as, Saul reigned one year. But the other versions read
quite differently. The NASV has, Saul was forty years old when he
began to reign; the NIV has, Saul was thirty years old when he became
king; and the RSV/ESV has, Saul was years old when he began to
reign. Which of the above is correct? The only way whereby we can
ascertain the correct reading is to go to the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew
Bible since day one reads Ben-shanah Shaoul, literally, A son of a year
(was) Saul, or idiomatically, Saul was a year old.
Now, the difficulty is: How could Saul be only a year old when he
began to reign? Scholars and translators who do not believe in the perfect
preservation of the Scriptures say that this is an actual discrepancy in the
Hebrew Text which they attribute to a scribal error. This is why
Michael Harding in a mistitled bookGods Word in Our Handswrote,
[I]n 1 Samuel 13:1-2 the Masoretic Text states that Saul was one year of
age (ben-shanahliterally son of a year) Some ancient Greek
manuscripts read thirty years instead of one year, On account of
my theological conviction regarding the inerrancy of the autographa, I
believe the original Hebrew text also reads thirty, even though we do not
currently possess a Hebrew manuscript with that reading.30
101
Harding and those like him fail to apply the logic of faith to the
promise of God that He will preserve and has preserved every iota of His
inspired words. This leads them to conclude that a word is lost and 1
Samuel 13:1 contains a scribal error even when there is no such error
to begin with. They change the text when the text needs no changing.
They replace divine words with human words. Instead of attributing error
to the translation (NASV, NIV, RSV, ESV), they rather fault the inspired
and preserved Hebrew Text and treat it as an actual discrepancy even
when there is absolutely none. This has caused many Bible believers to
doubt Gods Word: Do we really have Gods infallible and inerrant Word
in our hands? Many are indeed stumbled by such allegations of error in
the Bible, and are questioning whether they can really trust the Scriptures
at all if there is no such thing as a complete and perfect Word of God
today.
It must be categorically stated that there is no error at all in the
Hebrew Text and no mistake also in the KJV which translated 1 Samuel
13:1 accurately. So how do we explain 1 Samuel 13:1? A faithful
explanation is offered by Matthew Poole who wrote,
[Saul] had now reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in which
time these things were done, which are recorded in chap. xi., xii., to wit,
peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2 Sam. ii.10.31
In other words, the year of Saul was calculated not from the time of
his birth but from his appointment as king; Saul was a year old into his
reign. This meaning is supported by the Geneva Bible which reads,
Saul now had beene King one yeere. Rest assured, there is no mistake
in the Hebrew Text and in the KJV here. God has indeed inspired and
preserved His OT words perfectly so that we might have an infallible,
inerrant OT Bible in our hands today.
New Testament Words
As much as the Lord has preserved His inspired OT words (Matt
5:18), so also has He preserved His inspired NT words (Matt 24:35).
Where are His words? The divinely preserved words of God today are
found in the pure and preserved Greek Textus Receptus underlying the
KJV, and not in the corrupt and heretical Westcott-Hort Greek Text
behind the modern versions which not only cast doubts on the
authenticity of certain Biblical passages like the last 12 verses of Mark
(Mark 16:9-20), and the pericope de adultera (John 7:53-8:11), but also
scissored out the following verses of Scripture in whole or in part:
102

SCISSION AND CORRUPTION IN THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXT
AND THE MODERN ENGLISH VERSIONS
Entire Verses Deleted
Matt
17:21
Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
23:14
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye

devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long
prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
7:16
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:46
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in

heaven forgive your trespasses.
15:28
And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was

numbered with the transgressors.
17:36
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the
other left.
23:17
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
John
5:4
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool,

and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the
troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of
whatsoever disease he had.
Acts
8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus
Christ is the Son of God.
15:34
Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
24:7
But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great
violence took him away out of our hands.
28:29
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and
had great reasoning among themselves
16:24
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Mark
Luke
Rom
103

Portions of Verses Deleted or Changed
Matt
Mark
104
5:22
without a cause
5:27
by them of old time
6:13
For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.
Amen
9:35
among the people
10:3
Lebbaeus, whose surname was
10:8
raise the dead
12:35
of the heart
13:51
Jesus saith unto them
15:8
draweth nigh unto me with their mouth
18:29
at his feet
19:20
from my youth
20:7
and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive
20:16
For many be called, but few chosen
20:22
and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with
20:23
and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with
22:13
take him away, and
23:3
observe
25:13
wherein the Son of Man cometh
26:60
false witnesses
27:35
that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet:

They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture
did they cast lots
1:2
in the prophets

Mark
Luke
1:14
of the kingdom
2:17
to repentance
3:5
whole as the other
3:15
to heal sicknesses, and
4:4
of the air
6:11
Verily, I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom

and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for that city
6:36
bread: for they have nothing to eat
7:2
they found fault
9:29
and fasting
9:45
into the fire that never shall be quenched
9:49
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt
10:24
for them that trust in riches
11:10
in the name of the Lord
12:4
and at him they cast stones
12:30
This is the first commandment
12:33
with all the soul
13:14
spoken of by Daniel the prophet
14:19
And another said, Is it I?
14:27
because of me this night
14:70
and thy speech agreeth thereto
1:28
blessed art thou among women
1:29
when she saw him

105

Luke
106
1:78
hath visited
4:4
but by every word of God
4:8
Get thee behind me, Satan
4:18
to heal the brokenhearted
4:41
Christ
5:38
and both are preserved
6:10
whole as the other
6:45
treasure of his heart
7:10
that had been sick
7:31
And the Lord said
8:45
and they that were with him
8:45
and sayest thou, Who touched me?
8:54
and he put them all out
9:54
even as Elias did
9:55
and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of
9:56
For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to
save them
10:35
when he departed
11:2
Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth
11:4
but deliver us from evil
11:11
bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone?

or if he ask
11:29
the prophet

Luke
John
11:44
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites
11:54
that they might accuse him
17:3
against thee
17:9
him? I trow not
19:5
and saw him
20:23
Why tempt ye me?
20:30
took her to wife, and he died childless
22:30
in my kingdom
22:31
And the Lord said
22:64
struck him on the face, and
22:68
me, nor let me go
23:23
and of the chief priests
23:38
written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew
24:1
and certain others with them
24:42
and of an honeycomb
3:13
which is in heaven
3:15
not perish, but
4:42
the Christ
5:3
waiting for the moving of the water
5:16
and sought to slay him
6:11
to the disciples, and the disciples
6:22
whereinto his disciples were entered
107

John
Acts
108
6:47
on me
8:9
being convicted by their own conscience
8:10
and saw none but the woman
8:59
through the midst of them, and so passed by
9:11
the pool of
10:26
as I said unto you
11:41
from the place where the dead was laid
12:1
which had been dead
17:12
in the world
19:16
and led him away
2:23
ye have taken
7:30
of the Lord
7:37
him shall ye hear
9:5
it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks
10:6
he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do
10:21
which were sent unto him from Cornelius
10:32
who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee
15:24
Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law
17:5
which believed not
18:21
I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem
21:8
that were of Paul's company
21:25
that they observe no such thing, save only

Acts
Rom
1 Cor
22:9
and were afraid
22:20
unto his death
24:6
and would have judged according to our law
24:8
commanding his accusers to come unto thee
24:15
of the dead
24:26
that he might loose him
1:16
of Christ
3:22
and upon all
8:1
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit
8:26
for us
9:31
of righteousness
9:32
of the law
10:15
preach the gospel of peace
11:6
But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise

work is no more work
14:6
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not
regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth
God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not,
and giveth God thanks
14:21
or is offended, or is made weak
15:24
I will come to you
15:29
of the gospel
5:7
for us
6:20
and in your spirit, which are God's

109

I Cor
9:18
of Christ
10:23
for me
10:28
for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof
11:24
Take, eat
11:29
Unworthily
15:47
the Lord
8:4
that we would receive
12:11
in glorying
13:2
I write
3:1
that ye should not obey the truth
3:17
in Christ
4:7
through Christ
3:9
by Jesus Christ
3:14
of our Lord Jesus Christ
4:17
other
5:30
of his flesh, and of his bones
Phil
3:16
rule, let us mind the same thing
Col
1:2
and the Lord Jesus Christ
1:14
through his blood
2:2
and of the Father, and
2:11
of the sins
1:1
from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ
2 Cor
Gal
Eph
1 Thess
110

2 Thess
2:4
as God
1 Tim
2:7
in Christ
3:3
not greedy of filthy lucre
3:16
"who" instead of "God"
4:12
in spirit
5:4
good and
5:16
man or
6:5
from such withdraw thyself
6:7
and it is certain
2 Tim
1:11
of the Gentiles
Heb
1:3
by himself
2:7
and didst set him over the works of thy hands
3:6
firm unto the end
8:12
and their sins
10:9
O God
10:30
saith the Lord
11:11
was delivered of a child
11:13
were persuaded of them
12:20
or thrust through with a dart
Jas
4:4
adulterers and
1 Pet
1:22
through the Spirit
4:1
for us
111

I Pet
4:14
on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is

glorified
1 John
2:7
from the beginning
4:3
Christ is come in the flesh
5:7
in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one
5:13
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
1:8
the beginning and the ending
1:11
I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and
1:11
which are in Asia
5:14
him that liveth for ever and ever
11:1
and the angel stood
11:17
and art to come
14:12
here are they
15:2
over his mark
16:5
O Lord
16:7
another out of
16:14
of the earth and
19:1
the Lord
21:24
of them which are saved
Rev
All the above words are the words God has purely preserved and
kept intact in the Greek Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based, but
are doubted and deleted in the modern English versions which reflect the
corruptions of the Westcott-Hort Text. A total of 2886 words (equivalent
112
to 1 and 2 Peter) have been scissored out of the KJV by the modern
versions.32 Which Bible is truethe cut up Bible that is edited by
modernists and neo-evangelicals, and based on heretical and corrupt
manuscripts, or the kept pure Bible that is sourced in the Protestant
Reformation and based on divinely preserved and uncorrupted
manuscripts? If the Holy Spirit indwells you and grants you discernment,
the choice is obvious.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion of this paper is as follows:
(1) The Judeo-Christian Canon was never lost and found, but always
preserved and identified, and they are the 66 books of the Bible39
in the OT, and 27 in the NT, no more and no less, fixed and firm, the
Apocrypha and Gnostic Gospels having no part whatsoever.
(2) The OT and NT Texts were never lost and found, but always
preserved and identified, and they are the Hebrew Masoretic Text of
the OT, and the Greek Textus Receptus of the NT, and not the
critical and corrupt texts of Kittel/Stuttgart, and Westcott-Hort.
(3) The perfectly inspired words of the Hebrew/Aramaic OT and Greek
NT were never lost and found, but always preserved and identified,
and they are all the words of the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Ben
Chayyim) and the Greek Textus Receptus (Stephanus, Beza,
Scrivener) on which the KJVthe Reformation Bibleis based,
and not the interpretive or speculative words of any version ancient
or modern.
In these end-times, may Gods Churchthe pillar and ground of
the truthreturn to the Reformed Bibliology of 16 th Century
Protestantism, and reject the Deformed Babelology of 20 th Century
Postmodernism, Neo-Evangelicalism, and Neo-Fundamentalism.
The Written Foundation of our Judeo-Christian Faith is sure and
secure for the word of our God shall stand for ever (Isa 40:8). Amen!
Notes
Jeffrey Khoo, Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations, a paper
presented to the Truth Bible-Presbyterian Church Adults Sunday School, March
5, 2006.
2
For instance, Princeton Seminarys Bruce Metzger, in his textbook on
New Testament textual criticism entitled, The Text of the New Testament (New
1
113

York: Oxford University Press, 1992), discusses the New Testament text in terms
of Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, presuming that there is no
such thing as a divinely preserved text that is without corruption, and that the
restoration of the text is entirely in the hands of textual scholars and their
universities, and not at all in God and His Church.
3
Jeffrey Khoo, Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa? The Burning Bush
11 (2005): 3-19. See also Theodore P Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text
(Philadelphia: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1997).
4
The word apocrypha comes from the Greek kryptein (to hide) and
speaks of the spurious nature of these 14 books: (1) 1 Esdras, (2) 2 Esdras, (3)
Tobit, (4) Judith, (5) Rest of the Chapters of Esther, (6) Wisdom of Solomon, (7)
Ecclesiasticus, (8) Baruch, (9) Song of the Three Holy Children, (10) History of
Susanna, (11) Bel and the Dragon, (12) Prayer of Manasseh, (13) 1 Maccabees,
(14) 2 Maccabees.
5
Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 254. See
The Gnostic Society Library (www.gnosis.org/library.html).
6
Ben Witherington III, Why the Lost Gospels Lost Out, Christianity
Today (June 2004): 28-32.
7
See J W Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the
Holy Gospels (Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society, 1998 reprint). On page 13,
Burgon wrote, certain manuscripts particularly copies of a Version these
do, to the present hour, bear traces incontestably of ancient mischief.
8
See Lost Books of the Bible Being All the Gospels, Epistles, and Other
Pieces Now Extant Attributed in the First Four Centuries to Jesus Christ, His
Apostles and Their Companions Not Included, by its Compilers, in the
Authorized New Testament; and, the Recently Discovered Syriac Mss. of Pilates
Letters to Tiberius, etc. (np: Alpha House, 1926).
9
H S Miller, General Biblical Introduction (Houghton: Word Bearer,
1947), 184-5.
10
Ibid, 185.
11
Trinitarian Bible Society, Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture,
Quarterly Record (April-June 2005): 1-15.
12
See D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible: A Fourfold Superiority,
nd
2 ed (Collingswood: Bible For Today, 1996), 20-3.
13
J Daniel Hays in his paper, Reconsidering the Height of Goliath,
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (2005): 701-14, questioned
the height of Goliath (1 Sam 17:4) in the traditional and received Masoretic Text,
calling six cubits and a span (ie, 9 feet, 9 inches) a scribal error. He argued in
favour of four cubits and a span (ie, 6 feet, 9 inches) as found in the DSS
(4QSam), LXX, and Codex Vaticanus. Thus Goliath was not that extraordinarily
tall after all, and the Jews and the Christians have been reading the wrong height
of Goliath all these centuries and millennia. Such a criticism of the Bible is
114

typical of scholars who are either ignorant or dismissive of the Biblical doctrine
of VPP.
14
Adapted from S H Tow, Beyond Versions (Singapore: King James
Productions, 1998), 121.
15
For a defence of the Byzantine Text, see Jakob Van Bruggen, The Ancient
Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg: Premier, 1976); and Harry Sturz, The
Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 1984). Dr Van Bruggen is Professor of NT at the Theological College of
the Reformed Churches in The Netherlands (Broederweg, Kampen), and Dr Sturz
was Professor of Greek at BIOLA (Bible Institute of Los Angeles). His book was
his ThD dissertation at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana,
USA.
16
For a defence of the Traditional or Received Text, see J W Burgon,
Revision Revised (Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society, reprint 2000); E F Hills,
The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian Research Press,
1984); and Waite, Defending the King James Bible.
17
For the intentional corruptions of Gods Word found in the Alexandrian
manuscripts, see J W Burgon, The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text
(Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society, reprint 1998).
18
Waite, Defending the King James Bible, xii.
19
Burgon, Revision Revised, 16.
20
For a critique of modern versions based on the Westcott-Hort Text, see
Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the
Doctrine of Providential Preservation (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2001), 69-100.
21
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 102.
22
See Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew DAncona, The Jesus Papyrus
(London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996).
23
See Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 91.
24
Erwin Nestle, Barbara and Kurt Aland, eds, Novum Testamentum Graece,
27th ed (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), 246. See Theodore Letis,
The Strange About-Face of the New American Standard Version, Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation Studies, January 9, 2002, in http://
www.holywordcafe.com/bible/resources/IRRBS-01-09-02.pdf, accessed on
February 11, 2006.
25
See chart on the two streams of NT Greek Texts in Jeffrey Khoo, KJV:
Questions and Answers (Singapore: Bible Witness Literature, 2003), 9.
26
See Jeffrey Khoo, A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The Burning Bush 9
(2003): 1-15.
27
Roy E Beacham and Kevin T Bauder, eds, One Bible Only? (Grand
Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 121 (emphasis mine). See my critique of this book, The
115

Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or Yea Hath God Said?
The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
28
Ibid, 114-5 (italics mine).
29
Robert J Sargent, A Scribal Error in 2 Chronicles 22:2? No!, The
Burning Bush 10 (2004): 86-92. See also Chester Kulus, Those So-Called
Errors: Debunking the Liberal, New Evangelical, and Fundamentalist Myth that
You Should Not Hear, Receive, and Believe All the Numbers of Scripture
(Newington: Emmanuel Baptist Theological Press, 2003), 367-8.
30
James B Williams and Randolph Shaylor, eds, Gods Word in Our Hands:
The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald, 2003), 361 (italics
mine). See my critique of this book, Bob Jones University, NeoFundamentalism, and Biblical Preservation, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 8297.
31
Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, (Mclean: MacDonald,
nd), 1:542. See also Kulus, Those So-Called Errors, 222-5.
32
Jack Moorman, Modern Biblesthe Dark Secret (Los Osos:
Fundamental Evangelistic Association, nd), 25.
116
15
THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE WORD OF GOD
Nguyen Gia Hien
How can you and I know God correctly, besides His general
revelation in Nature, without Gods Word, the Holy Bible? How can you
and I know that God is eternal, sovereign, all-powerful, all-wise, holy,
righteous, faithful, loving, good, merciful and perfect without Gods
Word? How can you and I know Gods will, commandments and
instructions without Gods Word? How can you and I know Gods
judgment and the condemnation of sin in hell without Gods Word? How
can you and I know our perishing state and Gods salvation for us in the
Saviour Jesus Christ, who truly came into this world, died for us, rose
again for our justification and will come again for our complete
redemption, without Gods Word? How can you and I live by every
word of God without the Holy Bible? How can you and I be sure that
the revelation of God is complete, sufficient and authoritative without
Gods Word? How can you and I discern what is truth and falsehood
when we hear a message or read an article without Gods Word? How can
you and I wholeheartedly believe and contend for Gods Truth in this
world full of deception, misleading human philosophies and theories, and
all kinds of false doctrines without the very perfect Word of God in our
hands today? Has God not known all about this and cared for His Word,
and perfectly preserved His inspired Word so that you and I can
wholeheartedly trust in His Word without any doubt? Surely the almighty,
sovereign, holy and faithful God has, and even magnified His Word
above all His Name (Ps 138:2).
The Holy Spirits Teaching

It is a great blessing for you and me to read a book with the author
beside us to teach us and explain his writing to us. The Holy Spirit is the
Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, but sadly many do not humbly trust
in Him but in human reasoning and rationalistic methods to understand
Gods Word! No wonder, they cannot see or understand Gods Truth.
117
The Holy Spirit, the Divine Teacher, comes to teach us all

things (John 14:26). If you and I have any difficulty understanding a
portion of the Scriptures due to our limited understanding, we should not
quickly judge Gods Word, but just go to the Holy Spirit with a humble,
meek, prayerful and teachable heart, and He will guide and help us to
understand His Truth from other passages of the Scriptures as well, The
meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way (Ps
25:9); But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all
things. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in
you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing
teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath
taught you, ye shall abide in him (1 John 2:20, 27).
This however does not mean that you and I do not need faithful
servants of God to teach us as he gave some, apostles; and some,
prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers (Eph
4:11). Thus, we can learn a lot from Gods true servants. I really thank
God for guiding me to the Far Eastern Bible College to learn His Truth
from faithful and godly teachers. However, only the Holy Spirit can make
me see the Truth personally with such a strong conviction that I will not
want to lose it or compromise it for anything else. So with the help of the
Holy Spirit, keep studying His Word diligently, Study to shew thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15).
The Holy Spirits Guidance

The Lord Jesus taught and guided His disciples to know the Truth,
and He promised them that after His ascension another Comforter, even
the Spirit of Truth, would come to teach and guide them, Howbeit when
he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he
shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he
speak: and he will shew you things to come (John 16:13). Here we see
that although there are three distinct Divine Persons in the Trinity, none
acts independently of the other two without their mutual trust and honour.
The Holy Spirit does not speak of Himself but only speaks what He hears
from God the Father and God the Son. Jesus Christ does the same,
saying, For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me,
he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak
(John 12:49). Therefore, the words that the Lord Jesus and the Holy
118
The Holy Spirit and the Word of God
Spirit speak are from God the Father. If you and I despise Jesus words or
the words the Holy Spirit inspired and guided His servants to write, even
the Holy Scriptures, we despise God the Father! How serious it is!
The Holy Spirit will guide you and me into not just some truth but
all truth. All the truth that you and I need to know about God and about
Jesus Christ, about His creation, about man, about His salvation for man
in Christ, about His divinely inspired and preserved Word, about His
future kingdom, judgement, new heaven and new earth, etc. have been
recorded in the Holy Scriptures. In other words, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit
of Truth, will guide you and me into all the Holy Scriptures, which is
Gods Truth. Thus, the Holy Spirit will never approve the corrupt Bible
texts and versions where His Truth is twisted, omitted or modified.
The Holy Spirit not only guides you and me into all truth but also
into Gods will: what we should say or do and where we should go
according to His will, providence, and direction (Matt 10:19-20; Acts
8:28, 39; 16:6-10).
The Holy Spirits Illumination

The natural man, no matter how intelligent or clever or scholarly he
is, can never see, know, understand or discern spiritual things and Gods
Truth, and even regards them as foolishness, the natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor
2:14). Why? The level of life and nature of animals, even monkeys, is far
lower than that of human beings. They cannot understand our talk, our
writing, our discussion, our plan, our project, etc. Similarly, unbelievers
cannot understand Gods Word, Gods Truth, Gods plan, or Gods way,
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isa 55:9). That is why
you and I must be born again and partakers of the divine nature and
receive the revelation and illumination from the Holy Spirit, But God
hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all
things, yea, the deep things of God (1 Cor 2:10), and That the God of
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of
wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your
understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of
his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the
saints (Eph 1:17-18).
119
The Greek verb photizo means to give light (Rev 22:5), to

enlighten (Eph 1:18), to illuminate (Heb 10:32), to make one see or
understand (Eph 3:9). Then, you and I have to humbly set aside our
human pre-understanding, prejudices and arguments when we come to
Gods Word as only the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and
revelation, is able to make you and me to see, know and understand
Gods Truth, His plan of salvation, and His glorious inheritance for us.
The Holy Spirit, the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, has revealed
His Truth to His Prophets and Apostles and used them to write it down,
so when you and I read the Scriptures, we must humbly pray to the same
Divine Author, Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things
out of thy law (Ps 119:18). It should be noted that the illumination does
not give a new revelation. The revelation of God is complete in the Holy
Scriptures, and God does not allow any addition to or subtraction from
His Word (Rev 22:18-19).
The Holy Spirit and Interpretation

In order to understand and interpret the Holy Scriptures properly,
you and I must be born again, sanctified, and illumined by the Holy
Spirit. Next, you and I must humbly submit to the Holy Spirit and the
authority of the inspired and preserved Scriptures in the original
languages. Then you and I must use the most faithful and correct
translation of the inspired and preserved Scriptures, and diligently study
the Scriptures with a reverent, prayerful and teachable heart and with
sound biblical doctrines.
How to interpret the Scriptures properly? The following are some
basic principles of biblical interpretation:
(1) Humbly seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit in prayer. Those
who trust in their intelligence without seeking the Holy Spirit fail to
interpret properly.
(2) Diligently read and meditate on the Bible text as many times as
possible to get the intended meaning before consulting the commentaries.
Read the Bible text with faith and reverence because it is Gods Word.
(3) Read with the context of the Bible text in mind, the parts
preceding and following the text, bearing in mind that Christ is the Centre
of the Scriptures.
120
(4) The Bible has only one meaning and one sense. Even when there
is a deeper sense, it still does not constitute a second sense or meaning.
For example, Caiaphas the high priest prophesied, it is expedient for us,
that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish
not. The deeper sense is that Jesus should dienot for that nation only,
but that also He should gather together in one the children of God that
were scattered abroad. (John 11:50-52).
(5) Use Scripture to interpret Scripture. For example, the word
virgin in Isaiah 7:14 means precisely virgin and not young woman
as found in the RSV. Matthew 1:22-23 is the inspired commentary on
Isaiah 7:14, pointing to the virgin birth of Christ.
(6) Be well grounded in the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. This
will guard you from interpreting the Scriptures in such a way that would
undermine the historic Christian Faith.
(7) There is only one fulfilment in prophecy. However, in a single
prophetic text, there may be two prophecies requiring two fulfilments.
For example, there are two prophecies in Joel 2:28-32, one was fulfilled
at Pentecost (Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2) and the other will be fulfilled when
Christ returns (Joel 2:30-32; Matt 24:29).
(8) Apply the literal or normal interpretation of Scripture. When
the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense. The
premillennialists have a proper interpretation of the Second Coming of
Christ that Christ must return to establish His kingdom on earth for a
thousand years based on a literal understanding of Revelation 5:10 and
20:1-7.
(9) Know that there are types and symbols in the Bible. For
example, the seven golden candlesticks (lampstands) is used to
symbolise the seven churches in Asia (Rev 1:11, 12, 20); and the serpent
was lifted up is a type of Christ who was crucified for our salvation
(John 3:14-15).
(10) Scripture does not contradict Scripture. Any contradiction is
only apparent and must not be regarded as actual discrepancies. We need
to humble ourselves and admit our limited knowledge and understanding
so as to guard ourselves from an arrogant judgement and criticism of
Gods Word. Let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
(11) Knowing the biblical languages is a great advantage. Carefully
use Hebrew and Greek lexicons, grammars, concordances, theological
121
dictionaries and wordbooks, etc with much discernment to find out the
meaning of root words, phrases, syntax, structures, tenses and moods, etc.
This can help with a more precise understanding of the Bible text.
(12) Use Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries with responsibility
and discernment (as not all are sound) to know the historical and cultural
background of biblical times in order to interpret the Bible in the light of
its historical context.
(13) When necessary, use Bible commentaries with much
discernment, responsibility and prayer to get some good biblical
explanation from godly, Bible-believing scholars. The interpretation must
be biblical and should not contradict any fundamental doctrines of the
Bible.
(14) Study the Bible with the commitment to apply or obey the
principles and injunctions of the Bible in our lives today.
(15) The Holy Scriptures alone must be the sole, supreme and final
authority of our faith and practice, not circumstances, not experiences,
not human intellect, not the church, not any person, institution, or
movement.
The Holy Spirit and the Inspiration and Preservation

of Scripture
The Holy Spirit is the Divine Author of Gods Word, the Holy Bible.
He chose His servantsthe Prophets and the Apostlesto write exactly
what He wanted them to write so that the final product is the very
inspired Word of God free from any mistake or error although their
personalities and styles might be reflected in their writing (2 Pet 1:2021). Thus, All scripture is given by inspiration of God or is Godbreathed (2 Tim 3:16). The Holy Spirit inspired not only the contents of
Holy Scripture, whether they be spiritual matters, or matters of history,
geography or science but also every word.
Since Gods Word is so vital for mankind to know the Truth about
God and His will for them, Satan has spared no effort to attack and distort
Gods Word since the beginning (Gen 3:1-5). Sadly, Eve fell into Satans
trap, and then Adam listened to Eve, and both sinned against God and
were cursed, and death entered into the world. It is really dangerous to
depart from Gods Word! Satan is still working hard to attack Gods Word
today, and many, even so-called Christian scholars have fallen into his
122
trap without being aware, thinking they are scholarly with their
historical and textual criticisms! It is sad that many blindly listen to these
men instead of Gods Word just like Adam, who listened to Eve.
The foundation of Christian faith is Christ and His Word. Satan
attacks the faith by sowing the seed of doubt in the hearts of many who
will eventually doubt Jesus Christ and His Word. Many argue that Gods
Word is only perfect in the original manuscripts (autographs), and since
the original manuscripts are no longer existing, they conclude that Gods
Word is no longer perfect. They fail to acknowledge and believe that the
sovereign, holy, true, almighty, faithful and perfect God has all power to
preserve His inspired Word to the very last word for His people as He
promised, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a
furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever (Ps 12:6-7).
The Lord Jesus Christ was filled with the Holy Spirit, and He never
doubted Gods Word but lived by Gods Word (Luke 4:1-4,18-21) and
confirmed the perfect preservation of Gods Word to the jot and tittle
although He had only copies of the Scriptures (apographs) in His day,
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18). Jesus
apostles were later filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), and they never
doubted or criticised Gods Word in their preaching and writings! In the
true revivals throughout Church history, Spirit-filled believers thirsted for
Gods Word and never doubted or questioned Gods Word!
The Holy Spirit and the Traditional and Received Texts

How can you and I recognise which Bible is Gods Word today since
there are so many Bible translations and versions, all claiming to be the
most faithful and correct translation of Gods Word from the original
languages? Now, before we can answer this question, we need to
understand certain things.
First, it should be noted that the Holy Spirit inspired His saints to
record Gods Word in Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament and in
Greek for the New Testament. Therefore, the doctrines of verbal and
plenary inspiration (VPI) and verbal and plenary preservation (VPP) of
the Scriptures refer to the original languages of the Scriptures, and not
the translations, even the King James Version (KJV).
123
Next, the copies of Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament with 39

books have been confirmed by the Lord Jesus Christ, His apostles and
His Church since the first century (Luke 24:44).
As there were many false gospels and corrupt manuscripts in Greek
circulating, the Spirit-filled saints who were guided by the same Divine
Author were able to recognise their Shepherds voice (Gods true Word)
to identify the 27 books of the New Testament as Canon at the Council of
Carthage in AD 397.
Then, in the 16th century, the Holy Spirit raised up His reformers to
bring His people back to Gods Word from the spiritual darkness under
the Roman Catholic Church. By Gods sovereignty and providence, in the
days of the Protestant Reformation, Gods people were guided by the
same Divine Author to identify and confirm Gods Word in the
Traditional and Received Texts, and other faithful versions.
Many argue that it is impossible to have the inspired Bible to the jot
and tittle today in the original languages because none of the original
manuscripts exists, no man is perfect and the process of transmission was
done manually by men, not by printing machines like today! Many others
are clever to hide their unbelief by saying that God did preserve all His
teachings or doctrines regarding the salvation of His people, but not
every word of His Scripture. Many others just compromise and accept all
kinds of texts and versions. They are not serious to choose the right text
or version that God wants them to read. How about you?
The heart and mind of man are corrupt, sinful, doubtful, proud,
deceitful, rebellious and wicked (Jer 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Rom 1:28-32).
In the days of Jesus, so many did not believe He is God Himself and that
His Word is true despite His powerful preaching with so many miracles
authenticating His Person and His Word. When Peter confessed that Jesus
was the Christ, the Son of the living God, he got that revelation not from
himself but from God the Father (Matt 16:16-17). You and I must be
illumined to see the Truth!
The same Holy Spirit, the Divine Author of Gods Word, who
helped and guided the Reformation saints and the KJV translators to
recognise the preserved texts and to reject the corrupt ones will help and
guide you and me to do the same. Do you seriously prefer the translations
based on the modern critical texts with thousands of Greek words omitted
and modified? What do you think about the name of Christ omitted
124
more than 30 times in the New Testament (Rom 1:16; Phil 4:13; etc),
God replaced with He (1 Tim 3:16) and many other omissions
including the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)? Unregenerate and sinful
men cannot understand the importance of Gods perfect Word from the
holy and perfect God, who hates sins, mistakes and errors and magnifies
His Word above all His Name (Ps 138:2).
The almighty God is able to preserve all His Words as He promised
(Ps 12:6-7) for with God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1:37).
Nothing is impossible with God including the preservation of His Words!
Thus, with the logic of faith in our sovereign, almighty and faithful Holy
Spirit, we trust that we do have Gods inspired and preserved Word in our
hands today in the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts underlying the KJV
and all other versions based on those same Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
texts. As far as English versions are concerned, the KJV is the most
faithful, most accurate and most reliable of all.
Conclusion
The Holy Spirit is the Divine Author of Gods Word, the Holy Bible.
If the same Holy Spirit, who was sent by the Lord Jesus Christ and who
indwelt the prophets and apostles, is dwelling in you and in me and
controlling our hearts, minds and thinking, we shall do the same:
magnifying Gods Word (Ps 138:2), living by Gods Word (Matt 4:4),
trusting in Gods Word (Ps 119:42), holding forth Gods Word (Phil
2:16), preaching Gods Word (2 Tim 4:2), and contending for Gods Word
(Jude 3) without any doubt, question or criticism, He that saith he
abideth in him (Jesus) ought himself also so to walk, even as he (Jesus)
walked (1 John 2:6). If you and I do otherwise, we are not truly filled
with the Holy Spirit, and neither are we in Christ. May the Lord
graciously help you and me humbly submit to the Holy Spirit and the
authority of Gods Word always, be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) so
as to bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) for our heavenly
Fathers glory (John 15:8). Amen.
125
16
A CHILD OF GOD LOOKS AT THE DOCTRINE OF
VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION
Carol Lee
Introduction
This paper states my understanding of Gods teaching in His Word
concerning the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation and the position I
must take with regard to this Doctrine.
I am no linguist or scholar of theology but I am a child of God. And
I write with that as my only credential. My heavenly Fathers revelation
through His Word to me and all His children is clear (John 10:27: My
sheep hear my voice , John 18:37: Every one that is of the truth
heareth my voice.) and can be understood with the illumination of the
Holy Spirit (John 14:26: the Holy Ghost shall teach you , Ps
119:18: Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of
thy law.)
I therefore write as one child of God to another. It is hoped that this
paper will help the God-fearing and God-honouring reader to come to an
equally biblical understanding of (and response to) this Doctrine.
Definition
While God has inspired men of old to write His Word in Hebrew
and Greek (ie, the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration of the autographs),
God also has taken it upon Himself to providentially preserve all of His
own words in Hebrew and Greek, so that they can never be lost. This is
the Doctrine of Verbal (words) Plenary (all, full, complete) Preservation
and this Doctrine is taught in the Word of God.
The Bible Teaches the Doctrine of Preservation

Psalm 12:67 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in
a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD,
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
126
A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of VPP

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations.
Psalm 78:17 Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the
words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark
sayings of old: Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told
us. We will not hide [them] from their children, shewing to the generation to
come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works
that he hath done. For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a
law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them
known to their children: That the generation to come might know [them,
even] the children [which] should be born; [who] should arise and declare
[them] to their children: That they might set their hope in God, and not
forget the works of God, but keep his commandments.
Psalm 100:5 For the LORD [is] good; his mercy [is] everlasting; and his
truth [endureth] to all generations.
Psalm 105:8 He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word [which]
he commanded to a thousand generations.
Psalm 111:78 The works of his hands [are] verity and judgment; all his
commandments [are] sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, [and are] done
in truth and uprightness.
Psalm 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of
the LORD [endureth] for ever. Praise ye the LORD.
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:152 Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou
hast founded them for ever.
Psalm 119:160 Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of
thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God
shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 59:21 As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out
of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for
ever.
Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 5:1718 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you,
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled.
127

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away.
John 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken;
1 Peter 1:2325 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all
flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass
withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord
endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto
you.
The Bible Teaches the Preservation of All the Words

(Not Just Doctrines) of God
Psalm 12:67 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God
shall stand for ever.
Matthew 5:1718 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away.
1 Peter 1:2425 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the
flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by
the gospel is preached unto you.
The Purpose of Verbal Plenary Preservation is to Sanctify

Gods Children When They Obey His Word
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you,
neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the
commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God:
but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children
for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
128

Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou
shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do
according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way
prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
Psalm 78:17 Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the
Proverbs 5:7 Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from
the words of my mouth.
John 20:3031 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye
might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye
might have life through his name.
Romans 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word
of God.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
2 Timothy 3:1617 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is]
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works.
Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the
sayings of the prophecy of this book.
My Belief on the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation

Just as I believe by faith that God created out of nothing and that He
created over a literal six-day period because the Word of God says so (no
matter what the scientists or the science text books say!), I believe by
faith that God can and has preserved His words for us because the Word
129
of God says so (no matter what the textual critics, scholarly linguists,
commentators, etc may say!). (See above for the biblical teaching.)
Just as much have been written against the literal six-day creation
(and the other miracles in the Bible), much have also been (and will
continue to be) written against the verbal, plenary preservation of the
Word of God.
But, finally, it is not what the experts or godly men say but what
Gods Word says. It is not what I can see with my eyes and touch with my
hands, it is what is revealed to me (and you) in Gods Word. (The Word
of God says it. That settles it. I believe it.)
I believe in Jesus. I believe in the resurrection and ascension of
Jesus. I believe there is a literal heaven and a literal hell. I believe in the
rapture of saints (although it defies the law of gravity!). I believe not
because I have seen all these with my eyes or that the experts or godly
men confirm that these are possible in reality. I believe because Gods
Word tells me so, and I believe by faith. It is enough that Gods Word
says so.
Believing in Gods Word may cause me difficulties. For example, it
means that I must believe that my unsaved loved ones will be left behind
during the rapture. I must believe that my unsaved loved ones will end up
suffering in a literal hell. Yet I must believe because Gods Word says so.
I cannot twist Gods Word to make it say that my unsaved loved ones can
be found in heaven. Let us never twist Gods Word to make our
difficulties or problems go away. The criterion for what I believe, or do
not believe, is not whether it suits me or not, not whether it is convenient
for me or not, not whether I want to believe or not, not whether it will
cause me problems or not, not whether my intellectual curiosity is
satisfied or not. The criterion is and must be whether Gods Word teaches
it or not.
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed
by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things
which do appear.
Hebrews 11:78 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as
yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house . By faith
Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after
receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he
went.
130

Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises,
but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced
[them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Let us take God at His Word and trust the words He has revealed to
us. Proverbs 3:5 says, Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean
not unto thine own understanding. Gods Word is rich with the teaching
of the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation. Let us believe Gods clear
revelation to us. Let us not lean on our own understanding and start to
doubt His Word.
Hebrews 11:7 tells us that by faith Noah, being warned of God of
things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of
his house . While Noah by faith obediently did all that the Lord
commanded him (Gen 6:22, 7:5) and preached Gods Word to the people
(2 Pet 2:5), the people carried on with their lives as per normal (Matt
24:3839), ignoring the Word of God. Luke 17:26 says, And as it was in
the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. And so
we must be ready for Gods Word to be rejected today when we by faith
believe and teach what God says in His Word.
Much have been written and spoken against the Doctrine of Verbal
Plenary Preservation, but one thing that is glaring in all these is the lack
of Bible support for the doctrine of non-verbal, non-plenary preservation.
No where in the Bible does it teach that Gods Word will be preserved
only in part. Nor does it teach that Gods Word is accurate only in the
areas of faith and salvation and not in the areas of geography and history.
Let us not be hoodwinked into believing the lie of the evil one,
couched in scholarly words, words that appeal to our intellect and pride.
Remember the strategies the evil one used with Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden (Gen 3:1), and with our Lord Jesus in the wilderness
(Luke 4:112). Let us learn from the mistake made by Adam and Eve and
not repeat it. Let us learn from our Lord how not to fall into the trap of
the evil one.
We believe in God, we must also believe in His Word. We must take
God at His Word. I cannot explain how God can create over a mere,
literal six-day period. But I believe in the literal six-day creation because
the Word of God teaches that. I cannot explain how Christ can be born of
a virgin. But I believe in His virgin birth because Gods Word says so. I
cannot explain how God can preserve His every word, even to the jot and
131
tittle. But I believe He can because He revealed in His Word that He will.
Let us take God at His Word. But without faith [it is] impossible to
please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is (Heb
11:6). For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the
faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every
man a liar (Rom 3:34). Yes, let God be true. If He says He will
preserve His words to the jot and tittle, let us let God be true.
You may ask: What if I cannot reconcile Gods verses? What if I
discover mistakes or discrepancies in Gods Word? Reader, ask
yourself: Am I smarter than God? Do I detect errors that God has
missed? Is my God not capable of keeping His own words intact?
God says He will preserve. Surely my almighty Lord God, the
Creator of heaven and earth, is able to preserve accurately and perfectly
the words that He has taken the trouble to inspire men of old to write.
If I cannot reconcile certain verses (and I believe God has promised
to providentially preserve His Word Himself), it must then be because of
my limited intelligence or understanding. The discrepancies must be
apparent discrepancies, not real discrepancies. Perhaps, God may use a
human teacher to enlighten me. Even if He does not, then I will wait till I
see Him face to face and I am confident He will be able to explain those
verses to me.
The Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation is Not a New

Teaching
It is not a new teaching but a very old doctrine that is being taught
in the Bible itself (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
In addition, when the New Testament writers and Jesus referred to
the scriptures (eg, 2 Tim 3:16, John 10:35), they were not referring to
the autographs but the faithfully copied apographs. They (Jesus included)
accepted without question the apographs as scriptures, as the very Word
of God. If the apographs are good enough for Jesus, they are good enough
for me.
Various confessional statements from the days of old have also
revealed their belief in the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation. The
Westminster Confession of Faith (16431648) states:
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people
of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of
132

writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately
inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all
ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the
Church is finally to appeal unto them.1
Note that the Westminster Confession did not use the term
autographs but spoke of the Scriptures in terms of the original
LANGUAGES. What are by His singular care and providence being
kept pure in all ages? The Hebrew words and the Greek words which
God has inspired men of old to put down in writing! The Westminster
Confession of Faith clearly teaches the 100% preservation of the Hebrew
words and Greek words of the Holy Scriptures.
Both the Westminster Confession (164348) and the Helvetic
Consensus Formula (1675) cite Matthew 5:18 as proof of the divine
inspiration and special providential preservation of the Holy Scripture.
The Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675) states:
God, the supreme Judge, not only took care to have His Word, which is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Rom 1:16),
committed to writing by Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, but has also
watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to
the present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud
of man. Therefore, the church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and
goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a sure word
of prophecy (2 Pet 1:19) and holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15), from which,
though heaven and earth perish, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
(Matt 5:18).2
Francis Turretin (16231687) expounded on the early confessional

doctrine of Biblical preservation and understood it to mean entire
preservation:
Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and
every word to these inspired men, would not take care of their entire
preservation.3
The Baptist New Hampshire Confession (1833) states:

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is
an infallible and inerrant treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God
for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error,
for its matter and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world,
the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all
human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.4
133
More recent statements have also revealed their belief in the

Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation. The International Council of
Christian Churches (ICCC) 16th World Congress in Jerusalem 2000,
Statement #2, On the Word of God Forever Inerrant and Infallible
declares:
The first historic doctrine of the Christian Church presented in the doctrinal
statement of this Council of churches is its belief in the inerrancy and
infallibility of the entire Bible Gods Word has been given to us directly
from heaven by the Holy Spirit and Jesus, while He was here, said that the
Father had sent Him and had given to Him the words which He had
delivered to man. Jesus was explicit when he said, Heaven and earth shall
pass away; but my words shall not pass away. It is this Bible and its
record of past prophecies that have been seen to be fulfilled in the smallest
level, and every Word of God is true . The ICCC reaffirms all the
statements carefully and prayerfully worked out all of which are based
squarely on this holy and perfect record which came from heaven, of which
God is the Author and that indeed is why it is called the Word of God.5
Dr E F Hills (19121981) wrote:

If the doctrine of divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament
Scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of
these Scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through
the centuries God has exercised a special, providential control over the
copying of the Scriptures and the preservation and use of the original text
have been available to Gods people in every age.6
An Acid Test
Reader, if you are unable to accept Gods teaching concerning the
verbal, plenary preservation of Gods Word, may I suggest that you make
a list of your objections and examine them one by one. Do you object
because of your need to see in order to believe? (John 20:25,
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger
into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not
believe.) Do you object because believing will cause you problems or
difficulties, and therefore you decide to twist Gods Word and make it say
something else? Do you object because you refuse to admit your limited
intellect when you are unable to understand or reconcile certain portions
of Gods Word?
Perhaps, in the process, you will discover your lack of biblical
support for your objection, that you actually have no real good reason for
134
opposing Gods teaching on the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation

except your own lack of faith and trust in Him and the teaching in His
Word!
Twelve Possible Dangerous Outcomes if the Doctrine of Verbal

Plenary Preservation is Rejected7
(1) No inspired Word of God intact.
(2) No absolutely infallible, inerrant Word of God.
(3) God is unfaithful in keeping His repeated promise that He will
preserve His Word forever.
(4) Jesus promises are unreliable (eg, My words shall not pass away.)
(5) Jesus did not mean what He said.
(6) God is so incapacitated by the errors of man and dark events of
history that He is unable to keep His promises.
(7) Faith of Old Testament prophets and saints that Gods Word will be
kept intact is a false faith.
(8) Affirmation of apostles and New Testament writers that Gods Word
will be kept intact is false.
(9) Our forefathers faith that the Word of God by His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages is not acceptable.
(10) Any one can question the authenticity and authority of the words in
the Bible.
(11) Believe scholars as to which part of Bible is wrong, instead of
believing God.
(12) No more absolutely trustworthy, perfect Word of God.
The Church Response and Responsibility

The Word of God is the authority on which our doctrines are based.
It is the authority for all our preaching and teaching. Over the years, the
church has found it necessary and important enough (rightly so) to make
a stand for all the various doctrines and positions of the church especially
when these are being attacked. Now, when the root of all our doctrines
and positions is being attacked, it is imperative that the church makes a
stand for the root, the very Word of God itself.
In our Bible-Presbyterian church history, we see that the church took
the stand of biblical separation (against Billy Graham and ecumenism).
135
The church also took the stand that the gift of tongue-speaking has
ceased. It was a credit to the church that amidst much controversy and
debate, it courageously stood on the Lords side. There was unhappiness
in certain quarters. With much sadness, the church lost some members in
the process. But this is a price that the church had to pay (and was willing
to pay) for obedience to her Lord and Master. Jesus has set us the
example (Phil 2:8: he humbled himself, and became obedient ,
Luke 22:42: not my will, but thine, be done.) He was obedient to
God the Father. He submitted to the will of His Father. So must the
church. Such vital issues that pertain to the teachings of God warrant the
church making a stand.
The churchs recent uncompromising and vocal teaching against the
movie The Passion of the Christ and against homosexuality shows that
our leaders are diligently performing the task of a good watchman as
required by God (Ezek 3:17; 33:67). When the church makes a stand,
effectively three things take place:
(1) The leadership clearly teaches the flock what Gods Word says
about the issue.
(2) The leadership leads the flock in obeying Gods Word.
(3) The leadership leads the flock to stand united to speak with one
voice for the Lord.
The present issue concerning the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary
Preservation is a vital issue that hits at the root of our faith and the root of
all our doctrines. It is not enough that in the past the church has
courageously made stands that are for the Lord. The Word of God is now
under attack. The church must once again make that decision to humbly
obey her God and stand on the Lords side by faithfully teaching what the
Bible says about the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation (John
21:1517: lovest thou me ? Feed my lambs Feed my sheep
Feed my sheep). Praise God that a handful of our churches have
already made that decision to stand on the Lords side. The flock needs
such watchful leaders to teach them the truth from Gods Word and to
lead them in obeying the truth. May God help our leaders to continue to
be diligent, faithful and courageous watchmen for the Lord. May God
help every child of God to read His Word and to believe by faith all that
He has revealed through His Word.
136
Conclusion
I give all thanks and praise to my Heavenly Father for assuring me
in His own Word that He has taken it upon Himself to keep His own
words intact and that I have a most sure Word of God today on which I
can be rooted firmly and not be tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness
whereby they lie in wait to deceive (Eph 4:14).
Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but
grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of
righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby (Heb 12:11).
Thank God for the peaceable fruit of righteousness in our hearts when
we humbly submit ourselves to our Lord, and just believe and obey Him.
But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them
that diligently seek him (Heb 11:6).
May God help me (and every child of God) to believe, to cling on
to, and to be rooted in His precious words as revealed to us in the Holy
Scriptures.
To God be the glory!
Notes
G I Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co, 1964), 14.
2
The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675), available from http://
public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/Helvetic_Consensus_Formula.htm. Internet;
Accessed on 25 January 2005.
3
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans George Musgrave
Giger, ed James T Dennison, Jr (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992),
1:71.
4
Philip Schaff, ed, The Creeds of Christiandom with a History and Critical
Notes. Vol III: The Evangelical Protestant Creed (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1931), 742.
5
ICCC 16th World Congress Statements, Jerusalem, November 814, 2000,
Far Eastern Beacon, 23/17 (Christmas 2000): 14.
6
Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Iowa: The Christian
Research Press, 1956), 2.
7
Prabhudas Koshy, If We Reject the Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation
of the Bible, Bible Witness, 2/4 (OctoberDecember 2002): 1617.
1
137
17
BIBLICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS IN
APPROACHING THE TEXTUAL DEBATE
Paul Ferguson
(1) All of our doctrines must be from the Bible (2 Tim 3:16). The
Bible is self-attesting (1 Cor 14:29, 32, 37; Matt 18:19). How we view
our world is not how God views it and believers are mandated to think
Gods thoughts after Him (Isa 55:9), which requires a scriptural
presuppositional approach to the textual question. A believer must study
to show himself approved unto God (2 Tim 2:15). As Cornelius Van Til
puts it, The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it
speaks. And it speaks of everything. We are to receive these promises by
faith (Heb 11:13; Matt 13:22; Rom 1:17).
God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the
Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut 31:9-13, 24-29; 1 John
1:1-4; 2:1-17; 2 Tim 3:14-17, 2 Pet 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes
clear that no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom
15:4; 1 Cor 10:11). God intended for those writings to be recognised and
received by the church as a whole (e.g. Col 4:16; Rev 1:4). These Words
were to be guarded (1 Tim 6:20-21) as a pattern of sound words for the
church (2 Tim 1:13-14) and to be used to instruct the future church (2
Tim 2:2).
(2) The Bible promises that God will preserve every one of His
Words forever down to the very jot and tittle of the smallest letter (Pss
12:6-7; 33:11; 119:152, 160; Isa 30:8; 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Matt 5:18;
24:35).
(3) The Bible assures us that Gods Words are perfect and pure (Ps
12:6-7; Prov 30:4-5).
(4) The Bible promises that God would make His Words generally
available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Isa 34:16;
59:21; Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 17). (This is general availability, not
necessarily to every person on the planet.) Certainly, we are told that for
138
Biblical Presuppositions in Approaching the Textual Debate
around two millennia in history only one small nation had the true and
pure words of God, He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his
judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his
judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD (Ps 147:1920).
(5) The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of
God (2 Pet 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23; 22:20-1; Dan 12:9-10).
(6) The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth,
that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13; 17:8, 17).
(7) God states that the Bible will be settled to the extent that
someone could not add or take away from His Words (Rev 22:18-19;
Deut 12:32). Indeed, the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 warned the saints of
his day to be mindful of the Words of the Old Testament writings (v2a)
and the New Testament writings (v2b), which would be absurd if some of
these Words had been corrupted or lost.
(8) The Bible shows that the true Church of Christ would receive
these Words (John 17:8; Acts 8:14, 11:1; 17:11; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Cor
15:3).
(9) The Bible implies that believers would receive these Words from
other believers (Deut 17:18; 1 Kgs 2:3; Prov 25:1; Acts 7:38; Heb 7:11; 1
Thess 1:6; Phil 4:9).
(10) The Bible shows that Bible promises may appear to contradict
science and reason. In Genesis 2 we see that a newly created world may
look ancient. However, the Scriptures remind us that It is better to
trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man (Ps 118:8).
(11) Christ implied the preservation of His very Words as a Standard
of future judgment (John 12:48). He also warned of the vanity of ignoring
His actual Words (Matt 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, the
Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus
rebuked, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures. If the Scriptures were
only accessible in the Originals then why would He chide them for being
ignorant of Words that were not available? Believers are commanded to
contend for the faith (Jude 3) and this faith is based upon the Words of
God (Rom 10:17). Note that concerning the end-times, the Lord Jesus
warned, Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith
on the earth? (Luke 18:8 cf. Amos 8:11; Lam 2:9).
139
Here are other Bible evidences that guide us:

(1) God also has established Biblical precedents which show that He
keeps and protects His Words. For instance, when Moses broke the
original copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon
afterwards and not hundreds of years later and Scripture makes the point
that these second tablets were written the words that were in the first
tables (Deut 10:2). In the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the
burning of His inspired Words by preparing Baruch to record in it all the
former words that were in the first roll (Jer 36:28).
(2) Jesus preached from the existing scrolls and we are explicitly
told they were Scripture (Luke 4:21). Jesus also explicitly said the
Scripture that they were reading was spoken unto you by God (Matt
22:31 cf. Mark 12:24-26). Indeed, Christ said to His audience that when
they read the Scripture they would see that which was written by Daniel
the prophet himself (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Other New Testament
passages argue from the Old Testament text based on a phrase (as in Acts
15:13-17), a word (Matt 22:32), or even the difference between the
singular and plural form of a word (as in Gal 3:16).
(3) The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt
the word of God (2 Cor 2:17) and handle it deceitfully (2 Cor 4:2).
The Apostle Paul warns of those who changed the truth of God into a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator as
heading towards apostasy (Rom 1:25). There would arise false gospels
with false epistles (2 Thess 2:2). Jesus taught us that if a tree is corrupt,
the fruit will be corrupt. Likewise, if a tree is good, the fruit will be good
(Matt 7:17). He was speaking of false prophets. False prophets and false
teachers corrupt the Scriptures (2 Pet 2:1-3). We must understand that
there will always be a line of perversion as there will be of preservation.
We are commanded to be fruit inspectors based upon the premise that
if a mans doctrinal belief is in error we can conclude that he will do
the same to the Scriptures (2 Cor 2:17). The fear of the LORD is the
beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7); so all knowledge of the Words of
God is rooted in God.
(4) God utilised fallible but Spirit-filled human writers to pen His
divinely inspired Words of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:21). A fallible
but Spirit-filled John the Baptist could point infallibly to Christ. As much
as a fallible but Spirit-filled Church can recognise and receive the
140
Biblical Presuppositions in Approaching the Textual Debate
infallible Canon, so can she also recognise and receive the infallible
Words of this Canon (John 10:27). Canonicity was recognised by the true
Church (not Rome) and the corollary of this must be that the Canonised
Words must be recognised by the true and faithful Church and not
Romes texts or apostate textual critics such as Westcott, Hort, Aland,
Metzger, Ehrman et al.
(5) The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in Scriptures in
contrast to Alexandria. Antioch is the first place where the born-again
believer is called a Christian (Acts 11:26). It is also interesting to see that
where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage,
Antioch is listed as a place of service, while Alexandria is listed as a
place of disruption (Acts 6:5-10). Egypt is for the most part associated
with ungodliness in the Bible (Isa 19:14; Acts 7:39; Rev 11:8). Most of
the New Testament books were written originally to cities in the
Byzantine Text area and none written to Alexandria. However, it was
precisely in Alexandria that corrupters of the true text dominated.
Dr Kent Brandenburg summarises from these presuppositions,
When we see what God has taught about His Words and the preservation
of them, we choose to believe what He said, despite tangible evidence.
Individual hand-copies had errors. God said that men would change the
Words of Scripture. He warned of it. We see that this is the strategy of
Satan, to amend the Words of God. However, God promised and so we
believe that He overcame the work of Satan and preserved His Words so
that we would have a settled text that is perfect in fulfillment of His
promises. The textus receptus of the NT and the Hebrew Masoretic of the
OT are the only texts that could have been preserved and available. They
are the only texts that believers will claim perfection.
I wasnt there when God created the world. I believe it anyway. I
wasnt there when God inspired His Word. I believe it anyway. I wasnt
there when Jesus died on the cross. I believe it anyway. I wasnt there
when God preserved His Words. I believe it anyway. God will be pleased
with your reception of the Words He preserved.
141
18
WHY WE SHOULD REGARD THE BIBLE AS
AUTHORITATIVE
Prabhudas Koshy
It is important that we regard Gods Word rightly. How well we
excel in our Christian life is very much dependent upon how we esteem
the Scripture. God spoke through Joshua that, This book of the law shall
not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and
night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written
therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt
have good success (Joshua 1:8). Our blessings are directly related to our
respect for every teaching of the Bible.
Since the Bible is the record of Gods own words, the authority of
God is inherent in the Bible. In the Bible, we hear God speaking with all
His sovereign authority. If we accept Gods authority, then we must also
acknowledge the authority of each and every word which He has
recorded in the Bible.
The following facts ascertain the supreme authority of the Bible in
believers lives.
Gods Call to Keep the Bible Unaltered, Ascertains Its

Authority
Every word of the Bible is to be taken with utmost reverence. We
are commanded not to diminish or expand, subtract from or add to that
which God has already revealed in the Bible. God does not allow any
change to His Word, because such an action is against His own authority.
God said in Deuteronomy 4:2Ye shall not add unto the word
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye
may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command
you.
142
Why We Should Regard the Bible as Authoritative
In Deuteronomy 12:32, the Lord reminds us again, What thing

soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor
diminish from it.
In Revelation 22:18-19, the Lord said, For I testify unto every man
that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add
unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in
this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and
out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Here God warns us that altering Gods Word would simply result in not
having a place in heaven.
No king would allow His commands or declarations to be altered,
because it is challenging the authority of the king. When God
commanded us not to alter His Word, He was stressing the importance of
honouring His authority manifested in it. God seriously views how a man
regards His Word. If any one approaches the Bible with carelessness and
insubmissiveness, the Lord shall deal with him severely. God will hold
the person who distorts His Word guilty on the day of judgement.
Gods Call to Obey the Bible, Ascertains Its Authority

God has clearly expressed the authority of His Word when He
pronounced blessings upon all those who obey His Word and curses upon
those who disobey it. Because God has given supreme authority to the
Bible, He expects all men to come with submission to its teachings. We
are told, Ye shall diligently keep the commandments of the LORD your
God, and his testimonies, and his statutes, which he hath commanded
thee (Deuteronomy 6:17).
Gods blessings are extended to only those who obey Him. Read the
following passages from Gods Word.
Ye shall observe to do therefore as the LORD your God hath
commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. Ye
shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded
you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may
prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess (Deuteronomy
5:32-33).
God told the Israelites, And the LORD thy God will make thee
plenteous in every work of thine hand, in the fruit of thy body, and in the
143
fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy land, for good: for the LORD
will again rejoice over thee for good, as he rejoiced over thy fathers: If
thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his
commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law,
and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all
thy soul (Deuteronomy 30:9-10).
Besides, Gods curse is pronounced upon those who disregard the
authority of Gods Law, the Bible.
Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do
them. And all the people shall say, Amen (Deuteronomy 27:26).
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that
obeyeth not the words of this covenant (Jeremiah 11:3).
Startling indeed! If any one does not do all the words of this law,
he is cursed. That is absolute authority.
The Bible Itself Ascertains Its Authority

The writers of the Bible often cited one another as authoritative
evidence for what they wrote. While they were citing other parts of the
Scripture, they often used the phrase it is written. The phrase it is
written is used about 80 times to refer to other parts of the Scripture as
Gods authoritative Word. This expression in the Bible is equivalent to
the phrase The Lord has said or Thus saith the Lord. If any one is
said to be disobeying that which is written, it actually means he is not
obeying that which God has commanded. For example, in 2 Kings 14:6
the books of the Bible written by Moses are referred to as ...that which
is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD
commanded...
In short, the Bible regards every portion of it as Gods authoritative
Word.
Jesus, the Apostles and the New Testament Writers Ascertained

Its Authority
Jesus often quoted the Old Testament as Gods authoritative Word.
One classic example of Jesus asserting the authority of the Scripture is
seen when He used the Scripture to ward off the temptations of Satan (cf.
Matthew 4:3-10). Jesus cited verses from Deuteronomy 8:3; 6:16, and
6:13; 10:20. Jesus citations of the Scripture in His preaching and in His
144
Why We Should Regard the Bible as Authoritative
spiritual battle prove to us that He considered the Scripture as

authoritative.
Like Jesus, the apostles also acknowledged the Old Testament as
Gods authoritative Word. (See the underlined parts of the following
verse which indicate the apostles belief that the Scripture is the
authoritative Word of God given by the Holy Spirit.)
While explaining the death of Judas who betrayed Christ, Peter saw
the fulfilment of a verse in Psalm and he acknowledged it as authoritative
Men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled,
which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning
Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus (Acts 1:16).
The New Testament writers recognised their own writings as from
God. Moreover, the first Christians acknowledged their writings as Gods
authoritative Word. In his epistle to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul
wrote that If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments
of the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37). Likewise we read in 1 Thessalonians
4:2For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord
Jesus.
The New Testament writers regarded each others writings as
authoritative words from God. For example:
In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul prefaced his statement with the Scripture
says, and then quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7For the
scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.
And, the labourer is worthy of his reward. In quoting from both the Old
and New Testaments, Paul regarded them as equal in authority.
In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter equated Pauls writing with the rest of the
Scriptures. Peter wrote: As also in all his (Pauls) epistles, speaking in
them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the
other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
In 2 Peter 3:2, the Apostle Peter affirmed the authority of both the
Old and New Testaments, saying, That ye may be mindful of the words
which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the
commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour.
145
Conclusion
God expects every believer to esteem His Word very highly. The
authority of the Bible is affirmed by the following facts which we have
already noted in detail:
(i) Gods command not to add to or subtract from the Bible;
(ii) Gods call to obey all that the Bible commands;
(iii) The Bibles own claim of authority (e.g. It is written);
(iv) Jesus, the Apostles and the New Testament writers affirmed the
authority of the Bible.
The last book of the Bible also exhorts us to regard His Word rightly
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is
at hand (Revelation 1:3).
The Lord spoke through Jeremiah about the miserable and hopeless
situation of the Jews who left God for idols and counsels of other
religions and that of the worldFor my people have committed two
evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed
them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water (Jeremiah
2:13). When the Jews left Gods authoritative and powerful Word, they
actually left the very source of a satisfying and meaningful life. Whatever
they had accepted in place of Gods Word was useless, like a broken cup
which cannot hold water. Their thirst for a purposeful and blessed life
was not quenched by other sources. What God requires of us is not to
look for other sources, but to search into what He has already revealed in
the Bible for help and blessings.
Acknowledging the authority of Gods Word is like recognising the
right source of the springs of life. Submission to the authority of the
Bible is like drawing from the right source of happiness and blessings.
146
19
IF WE REJECT THE DOCTRINE OF THE
PERFECT PRESERVATION OF THE BIBLE
Prabhudas Koshy
Rejecting the Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of the Bible will
lead to many severe spiritual dangers. It will undermine the very
foundation of the Christian faith. The following are the dangerous
outcomes of not believing in the Perfect Preservation of the Bible.
If we reject the Perfect Preservation of the Bible, then we concede
that:
1. We dont have the inspired Word of God intact, as the words of
the originals are not kept pure (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16).
2. We dont have an absolutely infallible, inerrant Word of God,
even though the Lord promises a perfect Word of God forever (cf. Psalm
19:7-9).
3. God is unfaithful in keeping His repeated promise that He will
preserve His Word forever (cf. Psalm 12:6-7; Psalm 111:7-8; Psalm
119:89, 152, 160).
4. Jesus promises, such as, my words shall not pass away, are
unreliable (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).
5. Jesus did not mean what He said, because the Bible is not
preserved as He utteredTill heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matthew 5:18; cf.
Luke 16:17).
6. God was so incapacitated by the errors of man and dark events of
history that He failed to keep His promises concerning the Preservation
of His Word. (It also casts doubt on Gods sovereignty, providence,
omnipotence, omniscience, etc.)
7. The faith of the Old Testament prophets and saints that Gods
Word will be kept intact forever is a false faith. The grass withereth, the
flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever (Isaiah 40:8).
147
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the
LORD are true and righteous altogether (Psalm 19:9).
8. The affirmation of the apostles of Christ and the New Testament
writers that Gods Word will be kept intact forever is false. (Matthew,
Mark and Luke quoted Jesus affirmation of the Preservation of Gods
Word, cf. 1 Peter 1:25).
9. Our forefathers faith that the Word of God by His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages is not acceptable (Westminster
Confession of Faith I. VIII).
10. Anyone can question the authenticity and authority of the words
in the Bible (cf. John 17:17).
11. Some parts of the Bible must be subjected to the scholarly
opinion of certain individuals. When those intellectuals point to us
where the Bible is allegedly wrong, we should believe them more than
the Bible itself (cf. Matthew 5:17-19).
12. It is wrong to have the presupposition that believers have an
absolutely trustworthy, perfect Bible (cf. Psalm 18:30; Psalm 111:7-8;
Psalm 119:128).
Denying the Perfect Preservation of the Bible will harm and hurt the
Church. It will open the door for anyone to criticise the text of the Bible
according to his personal thinking or opinion. This will further lead to
doubting the absolute accuracy and authority of the Bible. Thus the very
foundation of the church, the absolute sufficiency, trustworthiness and
authority of the Bible will be weakened and destroyed. If we preachers do
not have a perfectly preserved Bible, what assurance can the hearers have
in our preaching of the Word? If we do not have a perfectly preserved
Bible, our preaching is vain.
148
20
SOLA AUTOGRAPHA OR SOLA APOGRAPHA?
A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority
of the Holy Scriptures
Jeffrey Khoo
The Issue at Hand
What is the use of having a Bible that was only perfect in the past,
but no longer perfect today? Only the autographs (the original Godbreathed scripts penned by the very hand of the inspired Apostles and
Prophets) may claim infallibility and inerrancy but not the apographs (the
copies of the autographs), so it is popularly taught. This paper intends to
answer the question: Is the view that the Church no longer has the
infallible and inerrant autographs but only fallible and errant apographs a
tenable view?
The Sola Autographa view of infallibility and inerrancy is generally
held today by so-called evangelicals and fundamentalists. The
Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), despite its name, is mostly
populated by neo-evangelicals who deny the total inerrancy of Scriptures
albeit in varying degrees. The recent controversy over Open Theism in
the ETS is a case in point.1 The ETS definition of inerrancy is so loose
that it allows for all kinds of interpretations with regard to what inerrancy
means.2 This is due to the ETS belief that inerrancy lies only in the
autographs, The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of
God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. The consensus
among evangelical scholars is that the autographs are no longer in
existence.3 As such, an individual who believes that the Bible contains
mistakes may subscribe to such a statement because it can be said, I only
believe the Scriptures to be inerrant as originally given; I do not believe
that they are inerrant today since we no longer have the autographs, the
Scriptures as originally given. It goes without saying that the theological
confusion found in evangelical (or neo-evangelical) Christianity today
149
finds its root-cause in such a denial of Biblical inerrancy in the

apographs.
Regrettably, the Sola Autographa view of inerrancy is also held by
fundamentalist (or neo-fundamentalist) Bible colleges and seminaries.
Two recent booksFrom the Mind of God to the Mind of Man4 and One
Bible Only?5authored by men from Bob Jones University and Central
Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth) respectively championed such
a position.6 Apart from the pro-Westcott/Hort and pro-modern versions
stance that they have taken, they also contend that the Scriptures though
verbally and plenarily inspired in the autographs are not verbally and
plenarily preserved in the apographs. It is their assumption, that since
God did not choose to preserve His inspired words perfectly, there can be
no such thing as a perfect Scripture today.7 Or if there exists a perfect
Scripture, there is no sure certainty of where it truly is.8
In the years 2002-3, the faculty of the Far Eastern Bible College
debated this issue of the present perfection of Scripture which eventually
saw the resignation of two of its members who could no longer take the
Dean Burgon Oath. 9 Having rejected the supernatural jot-and-tittle
preservation of the Holy Scriptures, they could only affirm biblical
infallibility and inerrancy in the autographs, but not the apographs. Such
a false view of Sola Autographa as opposed to Sola Apographa has
caused great confusion and hindrance to the evangelistic-fundamentalist
cause worldwide.10 It is Fundamentalisms Folly as one Baptist pastorscholar has so aptly put.11
Definition of Infallibility and Inerrancy

According to the Chambers Dictionary, the word infallibility
means incapable of error, and the word inerrancy means freedom
from error.12 As such, infallibility may be deemed a stronger term for
the perfection of Scripture than the term inerrancy. If the Bible by
nature is incapable of error, it goes without saying that it must also be
totally free from error.
This paper shall use the terms infallibility and inerrancy in their
pure dictionary sense.
Infallibility and Inerrancy of the Apographa

The Scripture when it speaks of its inspiration and preservation and
consequent infallibility and inerrancy speaks of them in terms of its
150
Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?
apographs. For instance, when Jesus spoke of the jot-and-tittle

infallibility (or verbal inerrancy) of the Scriptures in Matthew 5:18, He
was referring to the Scriptures that He had in His hands, which were the
apographs of the OT Scripture, and not the autographs which had since
disappeared. The canonical OT which was completed by the 5th century
BC had been preserved exact and intact until the time of Jesus Christ in
AD 27. The Apostle Paul when he spoke of the divinely inspired
Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16 must have thought of them in terms of the
Scriptures then used by the church (AD 64), which were the apographs,
for the non-existent autographs could hardly have served as a supreme
rule of faith and life that is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be
perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16-17).
Some say that the Apostle Paul meant the perfect autographa when
he spoke of the God-breathed Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:16. If that was
what Paul meant, then a question may be raised: how can an intangible
and non-existent autographa serve as a supreme and final authority? An
authority must be existing, present and accessible or else it would be no
authority at all. An eye-witness who is already dead and unable to testify
is of no use in a court of law.
Others say that Paul meant the apographa, but argue that the
apographa cannot be deemed as perfect or complete. If this be the case,
then how can an imperfect and an incomplete apographa serve as an allsufficient guide for the perfect and complete equipping of the Christian
towards godly living? If an eye-witness is not of impeccable character,
but a compulsive liar, what good is he? His testimony would be utterly
discredited. The same goes for Scripture. If the Church does not have an
infallible and an inerrant Scripture, and have it today, then her supreme
and final authority of faith and practice is all myth. But it is truthful that
the Scripture was, is, and shall be Gods infallible and inerrant Word, and
thus supremely authoritative (Ps 12:6-7, Ps 119:89, Matt 24:35, Heb
13:8).
Not only does the testimony of Scripture itself affirm the perfection
of its apographs, the Reformers of the 16th century, in their declaration of
Sola Scriptura, always thought in terms of the existing infallible and
inerrant apographs rather than the autographs. The great Puritan divine
John Owen (1616-83)believed in the purity of the present original
copies of the Scripture, or rather copies [apographa] in the original
151
languages, which the Church of God doth now and hath for many ages
enjoyed as her treasure.13 Francis Turretin (1623-87)pastor-theologian
of the Church and Academy of Genevawrote in his Systematic
Theology, By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by
the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do
not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they
set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote
under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.14
The Protestant creeds reflect the Reformation doctrine of the
infallibility of the apographa as their Sola Scriptura. It was not enough
to affirm the infallibility and inerrancy of the autographa in the days of
the Reformation for the Roman Catholic Church challenged Sola
Scriptura at the Council of Trent (1545-63) by pointing out the scribal
errors, variants and discrepancies in the extant Scriptures. The Reformers
met this serious challenge by stating unequivocally that the extant
Scriptures were infallible and inerrant by virtue of Gods promise to
preserve His words to the last iota. In response to the Council of Trent,
the Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-8) produced a most excellent
statement on the continuing infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, The
Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek being
immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence,
kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies
of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (I:8). The biblical
proof-text cited was Matthew 5:18, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.15 In the
battle for the sole and supreme authority of the Scriptures over against
the Roman Catholic dogma of papal and ecclesiastical infallibility, the
doctrine of the special providential preservation of Scripture was
eventually and necessarily credalised in the days of the Protestant
Reformation.16
Although it is admitted that the Westminster Confession did not
specifically use the terms infallible and inerrant to describe the
Scriptures, their use of the word authentic said just as much. They did
not at all believe that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that they
possessed were in any way imperfect or errant. J S Candlish rightly
observed that the word authentic did not mean simply that the
Scriptures were historically true, but that in a literal sense, the existing
Scripture is a correct copy of the authors work.17 William F Orr put it
152
more forcefully, Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old
Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the
Westminster divines was immediately inspired by God because it was
identical with the first text that God has kept pure in all the ages. The
idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in the
Textus Receptus of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the
Confession of Faith.18
In the local and present context, the Constitution of Life BiblePresbyterian Church (1950), states, We believe in the divine, verbal and
plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their
consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of God, the
supreme and final authority in faith and life. 19 This 20 th century
statement is in keeping with the ancient Confessions, speaking of the
verbal and plenary inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of the
Scriptures (ie, autographs and apographs) in the original languages (ie,
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), as opposed to the original autographs
per se.20
Although the above statement is true to the reformed understanding
of Sola Scriptura, the 21st century contention for the present perfection of
Scripture requires a clearer and stricter statement. True Life BiblePresbyterian Church (2004) has risen to the occasion, and offers a more
definitive statement in her Constitution, which reads, We believe in the
divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary
Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in the original languages,
their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of
God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet
1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
It is historically quite clear that the Reformation slogan of Sola
Scriptura involved a belief in an existing Hebrew OT and Greek NT in
their respective apographs that were not only fully inspired but also
entirely preserved to their last jot and tittle, and hence absolutely
infallible and totally inerrant. The infallible and inerrant apographs could
legitimately serve as the Protestant Churchs supreme and final authority
in all matters of faith and life. It ought to be noted that the 19th-20th
century idea of infallibility and inerrancy as residing only in the
autographs was utterly foreign to the minds of the 16 th-17th century
Reformation saints and scholars.21
153
Perfect Autographs, Errant Apographs, and Textual Criticism

The current evangelical view of inerrant autographs is a relatively
new one that began in the 19 th century in conjunction with the
introduction of rationalistic textual criticism. Conservative theologians
have long identified textual criticism (or lower criticism) as a threat to the
biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration.22
Textual Criticism as introduced by Westcott and Hort treated the
Scriptures like any ordinary literature, and sought by human reasoning
and subjective analysis to judge which part of Scripture is inspired and
which part is not.23 They touted the highly corrupted Codex Vaticanus and
Codex Sinaiticus as the new standard text, and rejected the traditional
Textus Receptus as the providentially preserved text.24 Their revision of
the providentially preserved Textus Receptus saw them cutting out a total
of 9,970 Greek words from it in their newly edited Greek text of 1881.
The Westcott and Hort text deleted such divinely preserved and timehonoured passages as the Pericope de adultera (John 7:53-8:11), the last
12 verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), and the Johannine Comma (1 John
5:7).25 Their denial of verbal inspiration as seen in their rendering of 2
Timothy 3:16 was soundly castigated by Southern Presbyterian
theologianRobert Dabneyas the work of a Socinian and a
rationalist.26
The tragedy in reformed scholarship was in B B Warfields adoption
of the Westcott and Hort textual critical theory and his redefinition of the
doctrine of biblical inerrancy to make it apply only to the autographs.
Warfields novel concept of Sola Autographa unfortunately caught on,
and became the new paradigm in the textual critical exercise of
reconstructing (or rather deconstructing) the inspired text. The new
paradigm of older, harder, shorter readings as the inspired reading is
based on false rules.27 Based on such false rules, A textual critic engaged
upon his business is not at all like Newton investigating the motions of
the planets: he is much more like a dog hunting for fleas.28 Indeed!
The uncritical acceptance of Westcott and Horts false textualcritical theory by Princeton Seminary, and later evangelical and
fundamental seminaries resulted in the Textus Receptus being replaced by
the United Bible Societies and the Nestle-Aland Critical Texts as the
commonly received text in NT studies and modern translations.29 Over
a hundred modern English versions have been birthed by this mutilated
154
and corrupted text causing much confusion over the infallibility,

inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. Where is the Bible? Do modern
textual critics have the answer? They are agnostic!
Who are the textual critics that determine which text is the inspired
text that Christians should use? They are the editors of the current
Critical texts, viz, Aland and Metzger among others who are modernists.30
Can we expect them to make spirit-guided decisions with regard to the
text? Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who shall stand in
his holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart (Ps 24:3-4).
Can the Spirit of Truth be pleased to use men devoid of the Spirit to
guide them into all truth concerning His Word of Truth (John 16:13)?
Georg Luck of Johns Hopkins University has rightly said, our critical
texts are no better than our textual critics.31 Jesus said it well, Can the
blind lead the blind? Shall they not both fall into the ditch? (Luke 6:39).
Non-spiritual men have produced a non-spiritual text that formed the
basis of a plethora of liberal, ecumenical and feminist versions that
demote the deity of Christ and deny the veracity of the Scriptures. Is it no
wonder that the mainline denominational churches today are in such a
pathetic state, plagued by rampant apostasy and immorality?
Fundamentalisms love affair with Westcott and Hort, the modern
versions, and textual criticism is truly a classic case of the unequal yoke
(2 Cor 6:14-7:1). The KJV and its underlying inspired and preserved
Hebrew and Greek texts ought to be the Text of Biblical
Fundamentalism.32 But today, certain fundamentalists are speaking with a
forked tongue: they pay lip service to the KJV as the very (100%)
Word of God, but undermine its very sourcethe underlying Hebrew
Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptussaying that it is not 100%
(with much deference to Westcott and Hort).33 It goes without saying that
this partnership of the KJV with the Westcott and Hort Text in the
classrooms of fundamental theological colleges and seminaries is a
marriage made in hell. Is it no wonder that fundamentalism today is
dying?
The Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures

There is a vital need today for true biblical fundamentalists to
resuscitate the indispensable doctrine of the verbal and plenary
preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures, and by so doing, recapture the
Reformation battle-cry of Sola Scriptura as found in the infallible and
155
inerrant apographa of the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the

Greek Textus Receptus on which the venerable KJV is based.
The 19th century Warfieldian concept of the inerrant autographa as
reflected in contemporary evangelicalism ought to be expanded to
include the inerrant apographa. According to Richard Muller of Calvin
Theological Seminary, The Protestant scholastics do not press the point
made by their nineteenth-century followers that the infallibility of
Scripture and the freedom of Scripture from error reside absolutely in the
autographa, and only in the derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the
scholastics argue positively that the apographa preserve intact the true
words of the prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed
(theopneustos) character of Scripture is manifest in the apographa as
well as in the autographa. In other words, the issue primarily addressed
by the seventeenth-century orthodox in their discussion of the
autographa is the continuity of the extant copies in Hebrew and in Greek
with the originals both quoad res, with respect to the thing or subject of
the text, and quoad verba, with respect to the words of the text.34 It is
quite clear that the Reformation scholars believed in the 100% inspiration
and 100% preservation of the very words of Scripture that God has
breathed out, and not simply the doctrines (2 Tim 3:16, Ps 12:6-7, Matt
5:18, 24:35). Without the words, where the doctrines? It must be pointed
out that the current neo-evangelical and neo-fundamental view of (1)
verbal inspiration and total inerrancy in the autographs alone, and (2)
conceptual inspiredness and limited inerrancy in the apographs,
contradicts reformed and fundamental dogmatics.
Myron Houghton of Faith Baptist Seminary was precisely right
when he wrote, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God [2 Timothy
3:16]. Another way of saying this would be, all Scripture is Godbreathed, or all Scripture comes from the mouth of God. This means
God is directly responsible for causing the Bible writers to put down
everything that He wanted written without error and without omission.
But what of the Bible I hold in my hand? Is it Gods Word? Can it be
trusted? The answer is yes! Both truthsthe inspiration and inerrancy of
the original manuscripts and the trustworthiness of the Bible in my
handmust be acknowledged. To affirm the inspiration and inerrancy of
the original writings while casting doubt on the authority of the Bible that
is available to us is just plain silly. Can you really imagine someone
seriously saying, I have good news and I have bad news: the good news
156
is that God wanted to give us a message and therefore caused a book to

be written; the bad news is that He didnt possess the power to preserve it
and therefore we dont know what it said! A view of inspiration without
a corresponding view of preservation is of no value.35
Ian Paisley, renowned leader of the World Congress of
Fundamentalists and President of the European Institute of Protestant
Studies, wrote likewise, The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures
demands the verbal Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would
deny the need for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as being really
committed to verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God
today then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has
perished.36
In the battle for the Bible today, there is a need for Bible-believing
and Bible-defending churches and seminaries to produce statements of
faith that affirm the Scriptures to be verbally and plenarily preserved in
the apographs; that all the Hebrew and Greek words of the Masoretic
Text and the Textus Receptus underlying the Reformation Bibles as
represented by the Authorised Version are the verbally and plenarily
inspired words of God, and therefore absolutely infallible, totally inerrant
and supremely authoritative.37
There is also a need to be specific in the identification of the
preserved text. In his discussion on How to Combat Modernism
Follow the Logic of Faith,38 Edward F Hills warned against a false view
of preservation that says (1) the doctrines are preserved, but not the
words (contra Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33), or (2) the true
reading is preserved somewhere out there in the whole body of extant
manuscripts. Such a general and uncertain view would imply that God
was somehow careless in preserving His inspired words. Hills rightly
advised, It is not sufficient merely to say that you believe in the doctrine
of the special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures. You must
really believe this doctrine and allow it to guide your thinking. You must
begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed according to the logic of
faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and
the King James Version.39
It is by this same logic of faith applied consistently that D A Waite
concluded that the WORDS of the Received Greek and Masoretic
Hebrew texts that underlie the KING JAMES BIBLE are the very
157
WORDS which God has PRESERVED down through the centuries, being
the exact WORDS of the ORIGINALS themselves.40 (Note that Waite is
speaking of the Hebrew and Greek words underlying the KJV, and not the
English words, nor the KJV per se.)
This is not a new view, but a restatement of an old truth. By
believing in the verbally and plenarily preserved apographs, we are
affirming or reaffirming good old Protestant and Reformation Theology.
It is heartening to note that Gods people, filled and guided by the Spirit,
are recognising this vital truth of the verbal and plenary preservation of
the Scriptures, and not a few theological institutions have already taken a
declared position for it.41
One such institution is the International Council of Christian
Churches (ICCC). In its 16th World Congress in Jerusalem, 2000, a
statement, On the Word of God Forever Inerrant and Infallible, was
passed: The first historic doctrine of the Christian Church presented in
the doctrinal statement of this Council of churches is its belief in the
inerrancy and infallibility of the entire Bible Gods Word has been
given to us directly from heaven by the Holy Spirit and Jesus, while He
was here, said that the Father had sent Him and had given Him the words
which He had delivered to man. Jesus was explicit when He said,
Heaven and earth shall pass away; but my words shall not pass away.
The penalty pronounced on adding to or taking from the Scriptures was
severe judgement from God Himself. It is this Bible that has brought
into existence the ICCC. It is through this Bible that the Holy Spirit has
given the faith to the leaders who have established this Council and has
helped them maintain a sure and clear witness to the Bibles full
truthfulness. It is this Bible and its record of past prophecies that have
been seen to be fulfilled in the smallest level, and every Word of God is
true. Nothing that the archaeologists have discovered and will
discover will contradict this Book. This Holy Book is the work of our
righteous God in making possible the only salvation that exists and in
bringing men and women through the preaching of the Word in all its
foolishness into Gods everlasting kingdom. The ICCC reaffirms all the
statements carefully and prayerfully worked out , all of which are
based squarely on this holy and perfect record which came from heaven,
of which God is the Author and that indeed is why it is called the Word of
God.42
158
The Far Eastern Bible College, in a necessary effort to preserve her

original reformed and fundamentalist ethos, has issued a statement on the
Holy Scriptures that was unanimously passed by her Board of Directors
on December 29, 2003. Article 4 of the College Constitution reads,
1.1 The Statement of Faith of the College shall be in accordance with
that system commonly called the Reformed Faith as expressed in
the Confession of Faith as set forth by the historic Westminster
1.2 In abbreviated form, the chief tenets of the doctrine of the College,
apart from the Doctrinal Position Statement of the College, shall be
as follows:
1.2.1We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs)
and Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in the
original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and
as the perfect Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith
and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
159
Conclusion
The Burning Bush will continue to publish articles to defend the
present perfection of the original language Scriptures on which the
Authorised Version is based. Bible-believing and Bible-defending pastors
and scholars do not hide from alleged discrepancies in the Bible. In
future issues, we shall endeavour to glorify God and edify His saints by
explaining these difficult passages according to a faith-based, thoroughly
reformed, theological-presuppositional approach to the Scripturesthe
apographa we possess today contain no mistakes whatsoever!
It is enough just now to close with the words of Dean Burgon: I
hear some one say,It seems to trouble you very much that inspired
writers should be thought capable of making mistakes; but it does not
trouble me.Very likely not. It does not trouble you, perhaps, to see
stone after stone, buttress after buttress, foundation after foundation,
removed from the walls of Zion, until the whole structure trembles and
totters, and is pronounced insecure. Your boasted unconcern is very little
to the purpose, unless we may also know how dear to you the safety of
Zion is. But if you make indignant answer,(as would heaven you
may!)that your care for GODs honour, your jealousy for GODs
oracles, is every whit as great as our own,then we tell you that, on your
wretched promises, men more logical than yourself will make shipwreck
of their peace, and endanger their very souls. There is no stopping,no
knowing where to stop,in this downward course. Once admit the
principle of fallibility into the inspired Word, and the whole becomes a
bruised and rotten reed. If St. Paul a little, why not St. Paul much? If
Moses in some places, why not in many? You will doubt our LORDs
infallibility next! It might not trouble you, to find your own familiar
friend telling you a lie, every now and then: but I trust this whole
congregation will share the preachers infirmity, while he confesses that it
would trouble him so exceedingly that after one established falsehood, he
would feel unable ever to trust that friend implicitly again.
But I believe that the Bible IS the Word of GODand I believe
that GODs Word must be absolutely infallible. I shall therefore believe
the Bible to be absolutely infallible,until I am convinced to the
contrary. 43
No, Sirs! The Bible (be persuaded) is the very utterance of the
Eternal;as much GODs Word, as if high Heaven were open, and we
160
heard GOD speaking to us with human voice [T]he Bible, from the
Alpha to the Omega of it, is filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit of
GOD: the Books of it, and the sentences of it, and the words of it, and the
syllables of it,aye, and the very letters of it.44 Amen and Amen!
Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from
among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his
neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The
LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud
things: Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our
own: who is lord over us? For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing
of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety
from him that puffeth at him. The words of the LORD are pure words: as
The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted (Ps 12).
Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4). Soli Deo
Gloria!
Notes
Go to http://www.etsjets.org for information on the 2003 ETS
Membership Challenge on Open Theism.
2
The interpretive nature of the term inerrancy has led former ETS
President, Millard J Erickson, to describe inerrancy as a reference to the
variously interpreted doctrine that the Bible is free from error (emphasis mine)
in his Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology, sv Inerrancy.
3
Modern textual critics assume that the autographs (originals) of the NT
books are a hypothetical source only, since none are extant. J Harold Greenlee,
Introduction to New Testament Criticism (Grand Rapids MI: Wm B Eerdmans,
1964), 33.
4
(Greenville SC: Ambassador-Emerald, 1999), 25-26.
5
Rapids MI: Kregel, 2001), 102-103.
6
For a comprehensive review of both books, see my articles, Bob Jones
University and the KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of
Man, The Burning Bush (2001): 1-34; and The Emergence of NeoFundamentalism: One Bible Only? Or Yea Hath God Said?, The Burning Bush
(2004): 2-47. See also The Leaven of Fundamentalism: A History of the Bible
Text Issue in Fundamentalism, videocassette tape 3, Pensacola Christian
College, 1998.
1
161

Beacham and Bauder, One Bible Only?, 121.
Williams, From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, 182.
9
At every annual convocation, the FEBC Board of Directors and faculty
swear to uphold the perfection of Scriptures, that the Bible is none other than the
voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it,
every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is direct
utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not
some part of it more, some part of it less, but all alike, the utterance of Him that
sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme. Adapted from J W Burgon,
Inspiration and Interpretation (Collingswood NJ: Dean Burgon Society, 1999
reprint), 89.
10
On the infallibility of the apographs, listen to David Allens lecture, The
Special Providential Preservation of the Word of God, delivered to the Scottish
Reformation Society, February 2, 2004 at http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/
audio-sermons/767-special-providential-preservation-of-the-word-of-god. In a
letter to this author dated April 2, 2004, Allen clarified that his lecture was meant
to show that the current Reformed position was not a view shared by the
Reformers. The current Reformed position is the inerrant autographs
position originally espoused by B B Warfield of Princeton Seminary. It is
however unfortunate that Allen in his message on The Faithful Keeping and
Copying of the Word of God, at Life Bible-Presbyterian Church, Singapore, on
June 22, 2004, undermined the very doctrine of preservation he tried so hard to
present when he (1) dogmatically asserted that Psalm 12:6-7 does not mean the
preservation of Gods words whatsoever, (2) opened the possibility of scribal
errors in the preserved Hebrew text in places where there are none (eg, 2 Chron
22:2), and then (3) introduced a fallacious hermeneutical rule that Scripture
corrects Scripture (implying that the Scriptures contain mistakes).
11
Peter W Van Kleeck, Fundamentalisms Folly? (Grand Rapids MI:
Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1998), see especially pages 20-27 on
Dogmatic Disjunction. Van Kleeck offers a historical survey of the
interpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 in the days of the reformers (15-19). For an
exegetical defence of the verbal plenary preservation of the words of Scripture in
Psalm 12:6-7, see Thomas M Strouse, The Permanent Preservation of Gods
Words, Psalm 12:6,7, in Thou Shalt Keep Them, ed Kent Brandenburg (El
Sobrante CA: Pillar & Ground, 2003), 29-34.
12
Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, comp Rev Thomas Davidson,
sv Infallible, Inerrable.
13
Quoted by Theodore P Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text (Philadelphia PA:
Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1997), 43.
14
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol 1 (Philipsburg NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 106. Emphasis mine.
7
8
162

The Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile (Audubon NJ: Old
Paths, 1997).
16
Other Protestant creeds followed suit: The Confession of the Waldenses
(1655), The Savoy Declaration (1658), The Baptist Confession (1688),
Methodist Articles of Religion (1784), The New Hampshire Baptist Confession
(1833), Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva (1848), The
Reformed Episcopal Articles of Religion (1875). In none of them was the term
autographa used. See Philip Schaff, ed, The Creeds of Christendom, vol 3
(Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 1931).
17
J. S Candlish, The Doctrine of the Westminster Confession on
Scripture, as cited in Theodore Letis, ed, The Majority Text (Philadelphia PA:
Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987), 174. Emphasis
mine.
18
William F Orr, The Authority of the Bible as Reflected in the proposed
Confession of 1967, as quoted by Letis, The Majority Text, 174. Emphasis mine.
19
Fifty Years Building His Kingdom, Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
Golden Jubilee Magazine, 1950-2000, Singapore, 51.
20
This historic church in Singapore suffered a split in 2003 due to a nonreformed interpretation of the constitution which applied the terms inerrancy
and infallibility only to the autographs and not apographs, employing antipreservationist arguments from anti-reformed dispensational Baptists of One
Bible Only? (op cit) notoriety. Re: Preserving Our Godly Path, Life B-P
Church Sunday School, December 1, 2002 (lifebpc@pacific.net.sg), and this
authors critique of it (febc@pacific.net.sg).
21
Cf Richard A Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise
and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca 1520 to ca 1725, vol 2, Holy
Scripture, 2d ed (Grand Rapids MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 300-7.
22
Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, 1.
23
See B F Westcott and F J A Hort, Introduction to the New Testament in
the Original Greek (Peabody MA: Hendricksen, 1998 reprint) for the man-made
rules of anti-fedeistic textual criticism.
24
Read J W Burgon, The Revision Revised (Collingswood NJ: Dean Burgon
Society, 2000 reprint) for a refutation of the Westcott and Horts false Greek text
and theory.
25
For a defence of the authenticity of these precious passages, see E F Hills,
The King James Version Defended (Des Moines IA: Christian Research Press,
1984), 150-68; J W Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Collingswood NJ:
Dean Burgon Society, 1871); and Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8 (Tempe AZ: Comma Publications, 1995); Jeffrey Khoo, A
Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine
Comma (1 Jn 5:7f), Foundation, May June 2000, 34-5.
15
163

Cited in Jeffrey Khoo, Bob Jones University and the KJV, The Burning
Bush (2001): 10-11.
27
It is no wonder that scholars today are re-evaluating the textual critical
canons of Westcott and Hort. See David Alan Black, ed, Rethinking New
Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids MI: Baker, 2002), 27, 31.
28
A E Houseman, The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism, in
Selected Prose, ed J Carter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961),
131-2.
29
Edward F Hills, A History of My Defence of the King James Version,
The Burning Bush (1998): 99-105; Theodore Letis, B B Warfield, CommonSense Philosophy and Biblical Criticism, in The Ecclesiastical Text, 1-29;
Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the
Doctrine of Providential Preservation (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2001), 117-120.
30
David Cloud, For Love of the Bible (Oak Harbor WA: Way of Life
Literature, 1995), 37-44.
31
Cited in Black, Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, 50.
32
For fundamentalist society as a whole the Authorized Version functioned
as the direct and immediate expression or transcript of divine revelation The
virtual use of only one English version, and it is one originating within very
traditional early seventeenth-century Christianity, thus indirectly but very
powerfully supported the alienation of the fundamentalist public from, and its
opposition to, the positions, interests and methods from which all biblical
criticism grew and on which it depended. James Barr, Fundamentalism
(Philadelphia PA: Westminster, 1978), 210-1.
33
Cf Thomas M Strouse, Fundamentalism and the Authorized Version, a
paper presented to the National Leadership Conference, Calvary Baptist
Theological Seminary, Lansdale PA, February 29, 1996.
34
Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s v autographa.
35
Myron J Houghton, The Preservation of Scripture, Faith Pulpit
(August 1999): 1-2. Stuart Lease, former president of Lancaster Bible College,
likewise said, Now I believe that God so superintended both the writing and the
preservation of Scripture, not only the words, but the very letters.
36
Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997),
103.
37
See Jeffrey Khoo, A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The Burning Bush
(2003): 1-15.
38
Edward F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines IA: Christian
Research Press, 1977), 219.
39
Ibid, 220.
40
D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible: A Four-fold Superiority
(Collingswood NJ: Bible For Today, 1996), 48.
26
164

See list in Jeffrey Khoo, KJV Q&A (Singapore: Bible Witness Literature
Ministry, 2003), 18-19; Cloud, For Love of the Bible, 269-414.
42
ICCC 16th World Congress Statements, Far Eastern Beacon 32
(December 2000): 9. Emphasis mine.
43
Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, 73-4.
44
Ibid, 76.
41
165
21
ATTACKS ON THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE
BY APOSTATES
Paul Ferguson
The Bible is Gods infallible revelation of Himself to mankind. The
Scripture makes it very clear that its every Word is essential. All of our
doctrines, standards, convictions, and our practices are derived from the
Scriptures. The doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture enables us to
confidently appeal to these Words to determine all of our theological and
doctrinal boundaries. Gods revelation is authoritative, sufficient, and
clearand ultimately necessary for our existence (Job 23:12; Prov 29:18;
Isa 46:10; Amos 8:11; Matt 5:17-18; 16:1-4; John 10:35; Rom 1; 2 Tim
3:15; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:13). The whole system of Gods truth is set forth in
the Holy Bible as Gods inerrant, infallible and plenary Word. Even Peter
acknowledged the supremacy of Scripture over his wonderful experiences
with Christ in 2 Peter 1:16-18. Commentator Samuel Cox wrote, Peter
knew a sounder basis for faith than that of signs and wonders. He had
seen our Lord Jesus Christ receive honor and glory from God the Father
in the holy mount; he had been dazzled and carried out of himself by
visions and voices from heaven; but, nevertheless, even when his memory
and heart are throbbing with recollections of that sublime scene, he says,
we have something surer still in the prophetic word. It was not the
miracles of Christ by which he came to know Jesus, but the word of
Christ as interpreted by the spirit of Christ.
Rationalistic Modernism
Today, many a compromising church have accommodated
themselves to rationalistic modernism to the point that they no longer
hold absolute positions, save perhaps for religious pluralism and the
Golden Rule. However, the advent of relativism especially in the textual
issue is an insidious adversary, for it rejects the real possibility of
absolute truth, even if it promotes infinite forms of meaning. One
apologist once described this pattern as the treason of the intellectuals.
166
Attacks on the Authority of Scripture by Apostates
Since the Word of God is our only effective offensive weapon, it

would be wholly inconsistent with the character of God to send us out
into battle with a sword that is not dependable and uncertain. The Word
attests to Christ, and Christ attests to the Wordin fact Christ was the
Word made flesh! All of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit to set
forth Gods unique system of truth and thus the system of truth is selfattesting. Robert Reymond shows how absolutely vital the Scriptures are,
We must not forget that the only reliable source of knowledge that we
have of Christ is the Holy Scripture. If the Scripture is erroneous
anywhere, then we have no assurance that it is inerrantly truthful in what
it teaches about him. And if we have no reliable information about him,
then it is precarious indeed to worship the Christ of Scripture, since we
may be entertaining an erroneous representation of Christ and thus may
be committing idolatry. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to keep
the Christ of Scripture and the Scripture itself in vital union with each
otherthe former the Giver of the latterand to affirm that the latter is
true because it was inspired by the former who is Truth itself (John
14:6).
Theologian John Murray makes it clear the desperate state of
mankind without the Scriptures, Without Scripture we are excluded
completely from the knowledge, faith, and fellowship of him who is the
effulgence of the Fathers glory and the transcript of his being, as
destitute of the Word of life as the disciples would have been if Jesus had
not disclosed himself through his spoken word. Our dependence upon
Scripture is total. Without it we are bereft of revelatory Word from God,
from the counsel of God respecting all things necessary for his own
glory, mans salvation, faith and life. It is because we have not
esteemed and prized the perfection of Scripture and its finality, that we
have resorted to other techniques, expedients, and methods of dealing
with the dilemma that confronts us all if we are alive to the needs of this
hour let us also know that it is not the tradition of the past, not a
precious heritage, and not the labours of the fathers, that are to serve this
generation and this hour, but the Word of the living and abiding God
deposited for us in Holy Scripture.
False Worldviews
As a consequence of the Fall man is estranged from the God of
Scripture, giving rise to the many false worldviews that have arisen
167
throughout history. Mans ability to think logically has been impaired but
not erased by the Fall. The consequence of this is that often mans
reasoning is flawed, and can even be logically valid but from the wrong
premises. Therefore, it is foolish to make Holy Scripture subordinate or
equal to human reasoning.
Throughout the Scriptures, we see perennial attacks by the devil and
rebellious mankind on Gods authority. The very first textual critical
attack on Gods Words came in Genesis when we are told a serpent who
was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had
made cast doubt by posing the question, Yea, hath God said? Satans
strategy deals in doubt and cultivates it by attacking the certainty of
Gods Word by changing the truth, which is seen in his temptation of Eve
(Gen 3) and of the Lord Jesus (Matt 4). It should be also noted that Eve
also was a critic by adding to the Words of God. Like our modern textual
critics, Satan and Eve did what they wanted to do with Gods Words.
The Bible is very clear that the Devil hates the Word of God. He
utilized Rome to burn some copies, but his main attack was on the text
itself. We are told that Satan questioned it, misquoted it, took it out of
context, and attempted to get someone to doubt Gods promises (Gen 3,
Matt 4, and all of Job). The Apostle Paul warns of those who changed
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more
than the Creator as heading towards apostasy (Rom 1:25).
As a consequence, today most professing Christians lack a coherent
Biblical worldview. Many set up a buffer zone between the parts of the
Bible they accept and the parts they reject. The reality of objective truth
is denied as the Postmodern Church turn to feelings and experiences in
replacement for truth, and exchange worldviews as quickly as they try on
new clothes. It is increasingly difficult to defend the true faith to a world
and a Church that is unwilling to make any judgment concerning truth.
We must, however, assert the infallibility of Scripture over the fallibility
of human science and we must never allow the latter to drive our
interpretation of the Biblical text. In other words, we are not
integrationists who accept such as synthesis. We cannot don God-denying
glasses with the unbeliever and then try to point God out using them. As
Douglas Wilson eloquently put it, The Bible meets no standard; the
Bible is the standard. Conservative defenders of the Word too often act
like the Bible is an exceptionally bright student, always acing every test
we might devise for it. But the tests we devise are always skewed, and the
168
Attacks on the Authority of Scripture by Apostates
very idea of testing here is deeply problematic. We have the whole

classroom turned around. Our propeller heads in the back rowthe
scientistswere not enrolled in order to grade the teacher. And those in
the second rowthe textual criticsneed to quit passing notes and listen
some more. The Bible is not a grab bag of infallible truths,
thoughtfully provided by God so that we could have an axiomatic starting
point for our subsequently autonomous reasoning. The Scriptures are
authoritative. We are men, with our breath in our nostrils. We are
creatures with little pointy heads. Further, to complicate matters further,
we are sinful creatures. We must be under a complete authority, full
authority, exhaustive authority. The charge will of course be that we have
embraced obscurantism. We are opposed to science, or health, or worse
yet, to good food, wholesome air and bright sunshine. But we should
remain content, whether the slander sticks or not. As creatures, we
cannot function without an ultimate court of appeal. This is true of every
man, believing or unbelieving, and the only choice we have is whether or
not that ultimate court will be the Scriptures. But surely it should be
considered odd when Christians deny that ultimate place to what God
has told us.
Our Only Defence

The great attack in the last days is on the existence of God by
atheists, and the authority of Scripture by textual critics. There is a need
to build a Biblical defence to these assaults using the Biblical
presuppositional approach through the spectacles of Scripture. Our
defence of the faith should have no different ultimate authority than our
method of expounding the faith. The Lordship of Christ demands we
articulate and practice a Christian apologetic, Bibliology, art, science, and
music. In doing so, we need to honour Gods Words above the words of
any man. We trust His promises and wisdom above that of any man.
169
22
THE DEADLY SIN OF ATTACKING THE BIBLE
Timothy Tow
Adapted from the authors paper, A Standard Raised, published in
the July 1980 issue of The Reformation Review, the official organ of
the International Council of Christian Churches
A More Deadly Sin

Now, there is a more deadly sin that destroys us; and that is, as Dr
Chia Yu Ming my teacher in China has said, the sin of the mind and the
sin of the spirit, the sin of rejecting truth, the sin of wilful ignorance! In
the words of Isaiah, Judah has forsaken judgment, In transgressing and
lying against the LORD, and departing away from our God, speaking
oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of
falsehood for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea,
truth faileth (Isa 59:13-15).
One fitting backdrop of these words of condemnation is the
prophets confrontation with apostate King Ahaz. This is recorded in
Isaiah 7 and 2 Kings 16. Because Judah had backslidden from
worshipping the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9) and given herself to
idols and heathen sacrifices, so God had permitted her to be attacked by
the kings of Israel and Syria. Since Judah was the Lords chosen one, His
covenant abideth.
He sent the prophet to assure the nation of His mercies in the midst
of war preparations. When the Lord graciously condescended to show
His protecting presence with a sign from heaven, or in the sea, the
unregenerate king hypocritically answered, I will not ask, neither will I
tempt the LORD (Isa 7:12). This hypocrisy is ripped aside by Isaiahs
scathing denunciation, accompanied with the famous prophecy on
Christs virgin birth. Isaiah retorted, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is
it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isa 7:13170
The Deadly Sin of Attacking the Bible
14). What were Ahazs innermost reactions? I am sure he who

disbelieved the Word of God in the offer of His outward manifestations
of salvation had also spurned the virgin birth.
Today the enemy has come in with a flood of philosophies to
destroy the Church. There was Roman Catholicism with many
superstitions, then Deism and Rationalism, out of which has come Higher
Criticism. As They hatch cockatrice eggs, and weave the spiders web:
he that eateth of their eggs dieth, and that which is crushed breaketh out
into a viper (Isa 59:5), so out of the eighteenth-century destructive
criticism of Holy Scripture has come the reptile Modernism, or
Liberalism, which Dr Machen has called a pagan religion. From
Modernism, or Liberalism, has come Barthianism, or Neo-orthodoxy, and
a proliferation like the hydra of every style of high-sounding antiChristian theology, the latest of which is neo-evangelical scholarship so
called. Though the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC)
has been raised of God to offset the ecumenism of the World Council of
Churches, which today is degenerated to a self-glorified socio-political
gathering of professional churchmen, our greatest fight is with Satan
masquerading within it, whose work of mischief is to attack Gods Word.
Of this hidden adversary our Lord says, Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the
beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the
father of it (John 8:44).
The greatest lie Satan has spread in this generation is the teaching
through neo-evangelical professors of the Fuller Seminary type. They
proudly concede that the Bible has limited inerrancy. A corresponding
subtle attack from even greater heights of conceit (the sin that brought
Lucifers downfall) is to criticise the Bibles so-called grammatical
errors. Fancy a Greek professor picking on Johns or Peters uncouth
rhetoric when he himself cannot stammer a kindergarten rhyme in
modern Greek. Let him say in grammatical modern Greek, Little Bopeep has lost her sheep, and doesnt know where to find them . After
all, if Greek scholarship is so profound, the koine must be deepened by
the classical and broadened by the modern. And how much
Shakespearean English do these Greek professors know if the King James
Version offers them a double superlative? Please let them point out the
grammatical error of Acts 26:5, that after the most straitest sect of our
171
religion I lived a Pharisee. How true is the observation of Herbert

Spencer, When a mans knowledge is not in order, the more of it he has,
the greater will be his confusion. And better still is Pauls verdict,
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he
knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if
any man love God, the same is known of him (1 Cor 8:1-3).
The Battle for the Bible

The Battle for the Bible is the life-and-death struggle in our
generation as never before! It has been observed by Dr Charles
Woodbridge that there have been three periods of great controversy
between truth and error in the course of Church history. The first period
occurred in the time of Constantine in the controversy between
Athanasius and Arius. It came to a head at the Council of Nicea, 325 AD,
when Arianism was condemned. It was a fight over the person and deity
of Christ. The second period occurred in the sixteenth century in Luthers
repudiation of popery. The fight centred on the work of Christ, for the
just shall live by faith. The third period is now, since scholars began
to pick on the Bible because they themselves are blind (eighteenth
century to this day). This attack is on the Word of Christ. What is the
main battle the Council is waging? It is not so much with Communism, or
Ecumenism, or Billy Grahamism as with the father of lies whose work
of mischief from the Garden of Eden to this day is to destroy Gods
Word.
The doctrine of the plenary, verbal inspiration [and preservation] of
Holy Scripture is taught by none other than the Lord and Saviour, Jesus
Christ. The classic declaration on this doctrine of doctrines is found in
the famous Sermon on the Mount, Think not that I am come to destroy
the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily
I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:17-18). Our Lord
guarantees His Word perfect and pure to the last letter, to the cross of a t
and the dot of an i, if you would. Here is Gods standard, like the Stars
and Stripes over the fortress at Baltimore flying high, to resist Satans
all-out onslaught. Here is the second standard of the ICCC Doctrinal
Statement, resisting the foe of our faith. Truly our Declaration on the
Bibles inerrancy, infallibility, and supremacy has rallied all of you sons
of the faith throughout the world to come here and stand with the Lord of
172
The Deadly Sin of Attacking the Bible
Truth. Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be
displayed because of the truth (Ps 60:4).
For the strengthening of every seminary and Bible college within
our movement, let me offer this declaration of Far Eastern Bible College,
Singapore, for mutual encouragement: Far Eastern Bible College deems
the doctrine of the plenary, verbal inspiration [and preservation] of Holy
Scripture, inerrant and infallible, to be the cornerstone of all other
doctrines. Every member of the Board of Directors and Faculty must,
under solemn oath at a special service held each year, subscribe to
absolute belief in this doctrine to the exclusion of the latest neoevangelical leaven of limited inerrancy and so-called textual and
grammatical errors. These are Satans newest tactics for discrediting the
everlasting and ever-living words that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God (Matt 4:4). As Satan constantly changes his tactics in order to
beguile, if possible, even the elect, we declare that any question directed
against the person and work of Christ, such as His deity, virgin birth,
miracles, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, and personal, visible
return is deemed an attack on the immaculate Lord Himself. Any question
posed against the Bible is deemed an act of rebellion against the Triune
God.
We affirm with Dean Burgon of Oxford that The Bible is none
other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it,
every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it,
but all alike the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the throne, faultless,
unerring, supreme.
Which Bible?
(ICCC Resolutions on the Bible in Amsterdam 1998 and Jerusalem 2000)
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the International Council
of Christian Churches, assembled in the historic English Reformed
Church in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, observing its 50th Anniversary,
August 11-15, 1998, urge all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use
only the Authorised KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in
their teaching ministry, and warn the followers of Christ against these
innumerable new bibles which are not translations at all, but revisions
173
conforming to the personal bias and views of those who have originated
them and who profiting by commercial sales of such.
Believing the OT has been preserved in the Masoretic Text and the
NT in the Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the complete Word of
God. The King James Version in English has been faithfully translated
from these God-preserved manuscripts. We the International Council
of Christian Churches meeting in Jerusalem, 8-14 November 2000
strongly urge the churches in their pulpits and people at large, to continue
to use the time honoured and faithful longer translations and not the new
shorter versions that follow in too many places the short eclectic texts.
These are very similar to the shorter Westcott and Hort texts that remove
or cast doubt on so many passages and words.
174
23
THE DEAN BURGON OATH
Jeffrey Khoo
What is an Oath?
According to Chambers Dictionary (original edition, 1901), an oath
is a solemn statement with an appeal to God as witness, and a calling
for punishment from Him in case of falsehood or of failure. Taking an
oath is thus a very serious matter. According to the definition as found in
Chambers Dictionary, it involves (1) a solemn statement, (2) an appeal to
God as witness, and (3) a punishment from God in case of falsehood or
failure.
Who was Dean Burgon?

John William Burgon lived from 1813 to 1888. He was born in
Smyrna (cf Rev 2:8), a city of Asia Minor which is today Asiatic Turkey.
He was a graduate of Oxford University where he earned three degrees
(BA, MA and MDiv). Burgon was such an outstanding scholar that he
was later appointed Oxford professor of divinity in 1867. In 1876 he
became the Dean of Chichester, and was henceforth known as Dean
Burgon.
Just as David was raised up to fight Goliath, Burgon was raised by
the Lord to challenge Westcott and Horttwo liberal Anglicans who
attacked the inspiration and preservation of the Holy Scriptures. Filled
with holy indignation that Gods Wordthe very foundation of the
Christian Faith had been undermined, he devoted the last 30 years of his
life to the defence of the Traditional and Preserved Text and the King
James Bible over against the corrupt Westcott-Hort Text and their
Revised Version which is the father of all the modern versions of the
English Bible today.
Burgon had a high regard for the King James Bible. Consider what
he said, Our Authorised Version is the one religious link which at
present binds together millions of English speaking men scattered over
175
the earths surface. It may be confidently assumed that no Revision of

our Authorised Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy
the place of public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the
Translators of 1611the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon
language. We shall in fact never have another Authorised Version. As
something intended to supercede our present English Bible, we are
thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be
entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely.
Concerning the King James translators, Burgon wrote, Verily, those men
understood their craft! There were GIANTS in those days. because
the SPIRIT of their GOD was mightily upon them.
Like Burgon, True Life upholds the Authorised (King James)
Version to be the Word of Godthe best, most faithful, most accurate,
most beautiful translation of the Bible in the English language, and do
employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public reading,
preaching, and teaching of the English Bible (Constitution, 4.2.1.3).
What Is the Dean Burgon Oath?

In his defence of the Word of God against Westcott and Hort, Dean
Burgon produced a most sublime statement of faith on the perfection and
purity of the Holy Scriptures. He said, The Bible is none other than the
voice of Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every Book of it, every chapter
of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of
it, is the direct utterance of the Most High! The Bible is none other than
the Word of God: not some part of it more, some part of it less; but all
alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne; faultless,
unerring, supreme! At the FEBC 11th graduation service in 1979, the
Rev Dr Timothy Tow, founding principal of FEBC turned this statement
into an oath, and required every member of the teaching faculty to take it.
Is the Dean Burgon Oath according to the Scriptures? It most
certainly is. The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth
upon the throne. The phrase Thus saith the LORD appears 415 times
in the Bible to tell us that it is the direct utterance of the Most High God.
God speaks to us today directly through the Holy Scriptures. Each time
we read the Bible it has the authority of Thus saith the LORD. And this
Bible is none other than the God-breathed words of the Hebrew OT and
the Greek NT that form the basis of our Authorised King James Bible
176
The Dean Burgon Oath
which Dean Burgon promoted and defended in his battle against the
corrupt text and translation of Westcott and Hort.
To what extent is the Word of God pure and perfect? It is pure and
perfect to the last iota. The psalmist in Psalm 19:7 says, The law of the
LORD is perfect, converting the soul. Psalm 119:140 says, Thy word is
very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it. Proverbs 30:5 says, Every
word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God. Note
that All Scripture is inspired of God, not Some Scripture or Most
Scripture but All Scripture. Every word of God is important and
significant. Jesus said in Matthew 4:4, It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God. That was why Dean Burgon wrote, The Bible is none other than
the Word of God: not some part of it more, some part of it less; but all
alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne; faultless,
unerring, supreme! The Bible is faultless and unerring not only on
matters of salvation, but also of science, history, and geography. We
reject the view that the Bible contains insignificant mistakes like
spelling mistakes, chronological mistakes, numbering mistakes, or socalled scribal mistakes.
Do we have the pure and perfect Word of God today? The answer is
again a resounding yes. God not only inspired His words 100%, He also
promised to preserve His inspired words 100%, to the last jot and tittle.
Jesus said in Matthew 5:18, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Matthew
24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 say, Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away. Psalm 12:6-7, The words of the
LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever. The Westminster Confession of Faith (chap I, para
VIII) states, The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in
Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical. That is
why we affirm with Burgon, Every Book of it, every chapter of it, every
verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the
direct utterance of the Most High!
177
Please note that Dean Burgon wrote these words in the present
tense: Every book, chapter, verse, word, syllable and letter IS (not WAS)
direct utterance of the Most High. The Greek word gegraptai (perfect
tense of grapho, to write) translated it is written, or it stands
written, is used 67 times in the Bible to teach us in no uncertain terms
that the Bible was, is, and will always be the perfect Word of God
forever infallible and inerrant. This is a statement, a position, an oath of
faith. Hebrews 11:6 says, But without faith it is impossible to please
him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Allegiance to the Perfect Word of God

May FEBC maintain this good tradition put in place by the Rev Dr
Timothy Tow, and may all Board and Faculty members take the Dean
Burgon Oath sincerely without reservations. As Numbers 30:1-2 says,
This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. If a man vow a vow
unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall
not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his
mouth. When we take an oath that is in accordance to the Holy
Scriptures and say what God says in His Sacred Word, we are safe and
secure, and shall receive His blessing to serve Him who is the King of
kings and the Lord of lords. To Him be all glory and honour. Amen.
178
PART III
Biblia
179
24
JOHN OWEN ON THE PERFECT BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
Introduction
John Owen (1616-83) was the respected systematic theologian of
the Puritan tradition. One of his greatest worksOn the Divine Original
of Scripturessought to vindicate the purity and integrity of the
Hebrew and Greek Texts of the Old and New Testament. His writings in
23 volumes were published electronically by AGES Software in 2000. I
have quoted Owen extensively below, and the page numbers are those of
Volume 16 of The Works of John Owen (as found in The AGES Digital
Library Series, www.ageslibrary.com).
John Owen clearly believed in the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI)
and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of Scripture. He wrote, That as
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were immediately and
entirely given out by God himself, his mind being in them represented
unto us without the least interveniency of such mediums and ways as
were capable of giving change or alteration to the least iota or syllable;
so, by his good and merciful providential dispensation, in his love to his
word and church, his whole word, as first given out by him, is preserved
unto us entire in the original languages; where, shining in its own beauty
and lustre (as also in all translations, so far as they faithfully represent the
originals), it manifests and evidences unto the consciences of men,
without other foreign help or assistance, its divine original and authority
(450).
Owen affirmed the VPI and VPP of the Scriptures in the original
languages (364). He opposed Bible-deniers who said that the original
copies of the Old and New Testaments are so corrupted that they are not a
certain standard and measure of all doctrines, or the touch-stone of all
translations (366). His view of the 100% inspiration and 100%
preservation of the original language Scriptures as found in the
Autographs and Apographs truly reflects the Reformation mind of Sola
180
John Owen on the Perfect Bible
Scriptura over against the Neo-evangelical and Neo-fundamental view of

Sola Autographa.
Verbal Plenary Inspiration

Owen affirmed the VPI of the Holy Scriptures as written by the
apostles and prophets: That the laws they made known, the doctrines
they delivered, the instructions they gave, the stories they recorded, the
promises of Christ, the prophecies of gospel times they gave out and
revealed, were not their own, not conceived in their minds, not formed by
their reasonings, not retained in their memories from what they heard, not
by any means beforehand comprehended by them (1 Pet 1:10-11), but
were all of them immediately from God (384). Thus, the word that
came unto them was a book which they took in and gave out without any
alteration of one tittle or syllable (Ezek 2:8-10, 3:3; Rev 10:9-11) (386).
The Scripture is a product of divine and not human inspiration.
Owen wrote, the Scripture was not an issue of mens fancied
enthusiasms, not a product of their own minds and conceptions, not an
interpretation of the will of God by the understanding of manthat is, of
the prophets themselves. Neither their rational apprehensions, inquiries,
conceptions of fancy, or imaginations of their hearts, had any place in this
business; no self-afflation, no rational meditation, manned at liberty by
the understanding and will of men, had place herein (391).
The prophets and apostles were under the direct supervision of God
in penning the Holy Scriptures: God was so with them, and by the Holy
Ghost so spake in them as to their receiving of the Word from him, and
their delivering of it unto others by speaking or writingas that they
were not themselves enabled, by any habitual light, knowledge, or
conviction of truth, to declare his mind and will, but only acted as they
were immediately moved by him. Their tongue in what they said, or their
hand in what they wrote, was no more at their own disposal than the pen
is in the hand of an expert writer (384-5).
The Bible has many writers, but only one AuthorGod Himself. It
is only truthful to conclude that a perfect God must give a perfect Bible.
It goes without saying that a perfect Author must give a perfect Script.
Owen explained that the divine inspiration of the Scriptures
concerns the words, not simply the doctrines. He argued for wordinspiration and not thought-inspiration. It is the he graphe that is
181
theopneustos (2 Tim 3:16), the writing, or word written, is by inspiration

from God. Not only the doctrine in it, but the graphe itself, or the
doctrine as written, is so from him. Hence, the providence of God hath
manifested itself no less concerned in the preservation of the writings
than of the doctrine contained in them; the writing itself being the
product of his own eternal counsel for the preservation of the doctrine
(387).
Thus the Scriptures bind our conscience to affirm its veracity and
authenticity purely by our faith in them. Through faith we understand
that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are
seen were not made of things which do appear (Heb 11:3). So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17).
Owen wrote, We do so receive, embrace, believe, and submit unto it,
because of the authority of God who speaks it, or gave it forth as his mind
and will, evidencing itself by the Spirit in and with that Word, unto our
minds and consciences: or, because that the Scripture, being brought unto
us by the good providence of God, in ways of his appointment and
preservation, it doth evidence itself infallibly unto our consciences to be
the word of the living God (410).
Verbal Plenary Preservation

Owen not only believed in a 100% inspired Autographa but also a
100% preserved Apographa. He wrote, It is true, we have not the
Autographa of Moses and the prophets, of the apostles and evangelists;
but the Apographa or copies which we have contain every iota that was
in them (387).
On the VPP of Scripture, Owen agreed that the Autographs have
utterly perished and lost out of the world. However, that does not mean
that the contents of the Autographs have perished and are lost also. Every
one of the words of the Autographs has been preserved by the promise of
God (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35). Although it is readily acknowledged
that God chose not to preserve His Word miraculously but providentially,
Owen believed that the care and providence ensured the preservation of
every tittle contained in them (454).
Owen did not deny the existence of textual variants (387).
Nevertheless, he clarified that the whole Word of God, in every letter
and tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preserved without
corruption (388). There is no question from the above statement that
182
Owen saw the 100% preservation of Scripture as a dogma and not simply
a conviction.
Owen argued that if the infallible Word is not preserved wholly and
intact, then the Book is useless and our faith has no sure foundation. He
raised this concern: It will assuredly be granted that the persuasion of
the coming forth of the word immediately from God, in the way pleaded
for, is the foundation of all faith, hope, and obedience. But what, I pray,
will it advantage us that God did so once deliver his word, if we are not
assured also that that word so delivered hath been, by his special care and
providence, preserved entire and uncorrupt unto us, or that it doth not
evidence and manifest itself to be his word, being so preserved? (Isa
59:21, Matt 5:18, 1 Pet 1:25, 1 Cor 11:23, Matt 28:20) (450). In other
words, if Gods Word is not perfect today, fully preserved, how then can
we appeal to it as our sure and steadfast, final and supreme rule of faith
and practice? We simply cannot! If the Scriptures be not perfect,
Christians are a most miserable lot for sure (1 Cor 15:19).
Some presume that only the doctrines of Scripture are preserved but
not its words. What has Owen to say about this? Are only doctrines
preserved or words as well? Owen affirmed the latter, Nor is it enough
to satisfy us, that the doctrines mentioned are preserved entire; every
tittle and iota in the Word of God must come under our care and
consideration, as being, as such, from God (389). Owen clearly believed
in verbal and not conceptual preservation. Without the words, where the
doctrines? It is not only fallacious but utterly illogical to say that only
doctrines are preserved but not the words (cf. Gal 3:16).
Supreme and Final Authority

Owen argued that the absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures rests
on the very fact that they are the very Word of God, breathed out
(theopneustos) from heaven (2 Tim 3:16). The supreme authority of
Scripture remains so today because of the special providence of God for
He has promised that the Hebrew OT and Greek NT have been
transmitted to us without corruption or mutilation (382).
The Word of God has self-evidencing power because it is Light
itself. Now, the Scripture, the Word of God, is light. Those that reject it
are called (Job 24:13) lights rebelsmen resisting the authority which
they cannot but be convinced of (Ps 19:8, 43:3, 119:105, 130; Prov 6:23;
Isa 9:2; Hos 6:5; Matt 4:16, 5:15; John 3:20-21). It is a light so shining
183
with the majesty of its Author, as that it manifests itself to be his (2 Pet
1:19), a light shining in a dark place, with an eminent advantage for its
own discovery, as well as unto the benefit of others A church may
bear up the light it is not the light. It bears witness to it, but kindles
not one divine beam to further its discovery. All the preaching that is in
any church, its administration of ordinances, all its walking in the truth,
hold up this light (412-3).
On the basis of the self-evidencing efficacy of the Scriptures, Owen
ridiculed those who with a double tongue claim to believe the Scriptures
to be the very Word of God, and yet demanding human proof for it: By
saying that the Scripture is the word of God, and then commanding us to
prove it so to be, they render themselves obnoxious unto every testimony
that we produce from it that so it is, and that it is to be received on its
own testimony (404).
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7).
Unless man applies the principle of faith as expressed in Hebrews 11:6,
believe that he is (i.e., believe that His Word is what it claims to be,
the very Revelation of God itself), he will remain blind and lost in his
pride and arrogance. Our assurance that the Holy Scriptures are the very
words of God, is in and from the Scripture itself; so that there is no other
need of any further witness or testimony, nor is any, in the same kind, to
be admitted (405). Science (from Latin scientia meaning knowledge)
must come under the microscope and scrutiny of Scripture, and not vice
versa.
The Word of God shares its authority with no one. It is its own
authority and sovereign in its judgements. Truth is determined by the
Scriptures, and by the Scriptures alone, not the traditions of the church,
nor the opinions of men, no matter how great they may be for who can be
greater than God? Only God and His Word are infallible, not the Church,
not man. As such, our supreme and final authority in faith and practice
can only be our infallible God who has revealed Himself infallibly in His
infallible Word.
Textual Criticism
Owen said that the supernatural Scriptures must not be treated like
any ordinary book. His high view of Scripture led him to dismiss textual
criticism which he averred might be useful for human literature, but
certainly not divine Scripture. He wrote, It were an easy thing to correct
184
a mistake or corruption in the transcription of any problem or

demonstration of Euclid, or any other ancient mathematician, from the
consideration of the things themselves about which they treat being
always the same, and in their own nature equally exposed to the
knowledge and understanding of men in all ages. In things of pure
revelationwhose knowledge depends solely on their revelationit is
not so (389).
In Owens mind, textual criticism contravenes the doctrine of VPP.
He wrote against certain scholars who tried to correct the OT, And these
are the chief heads and springs of the criticisms on the Old Testament,
which, with so great a reputation of learning, men have boldly obtruded
on us of late days. It is not imaginable what prejudice the sacred truth of
the Scripture, preserved by the infinite love and care of God, hath already
suffered hereby; and what it may further suffer, for my part I cannot but
tremble to think. The dangerous and causeless attempts of men to
rectify our present copies of the Bible (376).
Owen was against textual critical judgements that went against the
Textus Receptus: We know the vanity, curiosity, pride, and naughtiness
of the heart of man; how ready we are to please ourselves with things that
seem singular and remote from the observation of the many, and how
ready to publish them as evidences of our learning and diligence,
Hence it is come to pass, that whatever varying word, syllable, or
tittle, could be by any observed, wherein any book, though of yesterday,
varieth from the common received copy, though manifestly a mistake,
superfluous or deficient, inconsistent with the sense of the place, yea,
barbarous, is presently imposed on us as a various lection (467). This
certainly argues against minority and indeed spurious lections of the
corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts of the Westcott and Hort Text which
goes against the common received copy.
God has supernaturally preserved every jot and tittle of His Word by
His singular care and providence. Insofar as copying or printing errors
are concerned, Owen says that there is no need of mens critical abilities
to rectify such mistakes (532). No man should play textual critic. God is
His own Textual Critic, and He knows how to keep His Word intact and
pure.
185
Conjectural Emendation
Owen minced no words in denouncing the conjectural emendation
of Scripture: The conjectures of men conceited of their own abilities to
correct the word of God are not to be admitted All that yet appears
impairs not in the least the truth of our assertion, that every letter and
tittle of the word of God remains in the copies preserved by his merciful
providence for the use of his church (461).
Owen was decidedly against calling a corruption in the text a variant
reading. He wrote, First, then, here is professedly no choice made nor
judgment used in discerning which may indeed be called various lections,
but all differences whatever that could be found in any copies, printed or
written, are equally given out. Hence many differences that had been
formerly rejected by learned men for open corruptions are here tendered
us again. It is not every variety or difference in a copy that should
presently be cried up for a various reading (468). This surely applies to
the Alexandrian manuscripts which had been cast into the waste basket
and long rejected as corrupt; but textual critics today hail them as the
oldest and the best, removing the inspired and preserved readings for
obscure and corrupt readings.
If Owen were to be given a copy of the United Bible Societies
(UBS) or Nestle-Alands (NA) Greek texts with their critical apparatuses,
he would have decried their indiscriminate display of variant readings,
and not only that, the actual replacement of ancient readings from the
commonly received texts with corrupt ones from already rejected
heretical texts. He warned of how, by the subtlety of Satan, there are
principles crept in even amongst Protestants, undermining the authority
of the Hebrew verity [i.e., the original inspired words of Scripture] as it
was called of old, wherein Jerusalem hath justified Samaria, and cleared
the Papists in their reproaching of the Word of God (377). Note that the
UBS and NA Critical Texts are edited by Roman Catholics and
Modernists. What a shame it is that as in the days of Owen, undiscerning
Protestants today clear the Papists [and Modernists] in their reproaching
of the Word of God. The Protestants today are undermining the
Reformers. These are certainly days of Deformation, not Reformation.
The indiscriminate display of textual variants and the conjectural
emendations of textual criticism destroy the certainty over the identity of
Gods totally inspired and entirely preserved Scripture as commonly
186
received. Owen wrote, If these hundreds of words were the critical

conjectures and amendments what security have we of the mind of
God as truly represented unto us, seeing that it is supposed also that some
of the words in the margin were sometimes in the line? And if it be
supposed, as it is, that there are innumerable other places of the like
nature standing in need of such amendments, what a door would be
opened to curious, pragmatical wits to overturn all the certainty of the
truth of the Scripture every one may see. Give once this liberty to the
audacious curiosity of men priding themselves in their critical abilities,
and we shall quickly find out what woeful state and condition the truth of
the Scripture will be brought unto (517).
The anti-preservationist textual critics today call all men fools or
knaves that contend for its purity [i.e., the purity of the Scriptures], yet
as Owen rightly challenged, they are none of them able to show, out of
any copies yet extant in the world, or that they can make appear ever to
have been extant, that ever there were any such various lections in the
originals of the Old Testament (378). Surely, one such example is 2
Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 where the Hebrew originals record the
age of Ahaziah when he became king as 22 and 42 respectively, evincing
no scribal error in keeping to the Lords promise of jot and tittle
inspiration and preservation (Matt 5:18).
The Christian is thus no fool to believe that in the Scriptures no
words are lost, and such discrepancies only apparent.
Against Ruckmanism
Owen was no Ruckmanite. He wrote against the Ruckmanites of
his day, who place themselves in the throne of God, and to make the
words of a translation authentic from their stamp upon them, and not
from their relation unto and agreement with the words spoken by God
himself (365).
These proto-Ruckmanites elevated the Septuagint (the Greek
translation of the Hebrew OT, also known as the LXX) to a place it did
not deserve, above the original Hebrew Scripture. They criticised the
Hebrew text in favour of the LXX by questioning the existence of an
infallible and inerrant OT in the apographs. They claimed that the
existing Hebrew Scriptures cannot be trusted because the ancient
Hebrew letters are changed from the Samaritan to the Chaldean; the
points or vowels, and accents, are but lately invented, of no authority;
187
without their guidance and direction nothing is certain in the knowledge

of that tongue; all that we know of it comes from the translation of the
LXX; the Jews have corrupted the Old Testament; there are innumerable
various lections both of the Old and New; there are other copies differing
from those we now enjoy that are utterly lost (367).
It goes without saying that a Romish or a Ruckmanite view of a
doubly inspired version or translation whether ancient or modern goes
directly against Jesus promise to preserve the original language Scripture
to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18). The denigration of the Hebrew Scriptures
in favour of the LXX or any other version insults the Author of the Holy
Scriptures who had appointed the Jewish people to be keepers of the
oracles of God (Rom 3:2). It is well known how the Jews took religious
and meticulous care in their transcription of Holy Writ. This is clearly
attested by a common saying among them, to alter one letter of the law
is no less sin than to set the whole world on fire (456).
Owen rightly saw the LXX as a corrupt version with an uncertain
origin. The Septuagint is woefully corrupt. Its rise is uncertain. Some
call the whole story of that translation into question ... The circumstances
that are reported about them and their works are certainly fabulous. That
they should be sent for upon the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, who was
dead before, that they should be put into seventy-two cells or private
chambers, that there should be twelve of each tribe fit for that work, are
all of them incredible. Some of the Jews say that they made the
translation out of a corrupt Chaldee paraphrase; and to me this seems not
unlikely. Josephus, Austin, Philo, Jerome, Zonaras, affirm that they
translated the Law or Pentateuch only (529).
In light of this, Owen wrote against a certain one who attempted to
change the inspired Hebrew text by means of the LXX: It was an
unhappy attempt, that a learned man hath of late put himself upon,
viz., to prove variations in all the present Apographa the Old Testament in
the Hebrew tongue from the copies used of old, merely upon uncertain
conjectures and the credit of corrupt translations. The translation
especially insisted on by him is that of the LXX. That this translation
either from the mistakes of its first authors or the carelessness, or
ignorance, or worse, of its transcribersis corrupted and gone off from
the original in a thousand places twice told, is acknowledged by all who
know aught of these things. Strange that so corrupt a stream should be
judged a fit means to cleanse the fountain (388).
188
He went on to say, To advance any, all translations concurring, into

an equality with the originals,so to set them by it as to set them up with
it on even terms,much more to propose and use them as means of
castigating, amending, altering any thing in them, gathering various
lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the altar of God, and
to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of men, with the
wisdom, care, and providence of God himself (459).
This sort of a shameful conjectural emendation of the Hebrew
Scriptures is precisely what the translators of the New International
Version (NIV) and New American Standard Bible (NASB) have done,
using the corrupt LXX to correct the Hebrew in 2 Chronicles 22:2 (cf. 2
Kgs 8:26). There they rendered the age of Ahaziah as 22 instead of 42
contradicting the inspired and preserved text. If such fallacies are
allowed, where are we to stop?
Are such employments of translations in correcting the originals
valid? Owen answered thus, for my own part, I am solicitous for the ark,
or the sacred truth of the original, and that because I am fully persuaded
that the remedy and relief of this evil provided in the translations is
unfitted to the cure, yea, fitted to increase the disease. Some other course,
then, must be taken; and seeing the remedy is notoriously insufficient to
effect the cure, let us try whether the whole distemper be not a mere
fancy, and so do what in us lieth to prevent that horrible and outrageous
violence which will undoubtedly be offered to the sacred Hebrew verity,
if every learned mountebank may be allowed to practice upon it with his
conjectures from translations (520).
It ought to be noted that Owen does not deny that in corrupt
translations, a man may find the gospel and salvation, but he argued that
this should not in any wise cause Christian Protestants to deny that God
had indeed preserved, and will continue to preserve His infallible and
inerrant Word to the jot and tittle.
Apparent Discrepancies
On things hard to be understood, Owen commented, It is readily
acknowledged that there are many difficult places in the Scripture,
especially in the historical books of the Old Testament. ... The industry of
learned men of old, and of late Jews and Christians, has been well
exercised in the interpretation and reconciliation of them: by one or other
a fair and probable account is given of them all. Where we cannot reach
189
the utmost depth of truth, it hath been thought meet that poor worms
should captivate their understandings to the truth and authority of God in
his word. If there be this liberty once given, that they may be looked on
as corruptions, and amended at the pleasure of men, how we shall be able
to stay before we come to the bottom of questioning the whole Scripture I
know not. That, then, which yet we insist upon is, that according to all
rules of equal procedure, men are to prove such corruptions before they
entertain us with their provision of means for remedy (533). This is sane
and sound advice. Yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
Conclusion
John Owen believed in the authority, purity and perfection of the
Holy Scriptures. As it is today, so was it in his day that Many there have
been, and are, who, through the craft of Satan and the prejudice of their
own hearts, lying under the power of corrupt and carnal interest, have
engaged themselves to decry and disparage that excellency of the
Scripture which is proper and peculiar unto it (363). Owen called these
Bible disparagers, pretenders and so they were, having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof (363-4).
Owen was persecuted for defending the 100% preservation of the
Holy Scriptures. He was unjustly accused of creating unrest, but he spoke
sincerely, When I have been for peace, others have made themselves
ready for war; some of them, especially one of late, neither understanding
me nor the things that he writes about,but his mind for opposition was
to be satisfied. This is the manner of not a few in their writings: they
measure other men by their own ignorance, and what they know not
themselves they think is hid to others also (378).
It may be asked: Why do so many Protestants today deny the total
preservation of the Scriptures when it is clearly stated in so many places
that the Scriptures are forever infallible and inerrant? Owen offers this
reason, Many men who are not stark blind may have yet so abused their
eyes, that when a light is brought into a dark place they may not be able
to discern it. Men may be so prepossessed with innumerable prejudices
principles received by strong traditionscorrupt affections making them
hate the lightthat they may not behold the glory of the Word when it is
brought to them (413).
What then is the solution? It is simply to submit to the supreme
authority of the infallible Word. Owen wrote, The Word, then, makes a
190
sufficient proposition of itself, wherever it is; and he to whom it shall

come, who refuses it because it comes not so or so testified, will give an
account of his atheism and infidelity. He that hath the witness of God
need not stay for the witness of men, for the witness of God is greater
(414). How we need to humble ourselves not only before the Christ, but
before His Word if we are truly to see the Light of Truth! This is the logic
of faith (Heb 11:6).
Christians who deny the self-evidencing infallible and inerrant Word
that God has perfectly inspired and preserved question their Saviour, and
undermine the very Foundation of their faith. Owen wrote, How know
we that the Scripture is the word of God; how may others come to be
assured thereof? The Scripture, say we, bears testimony to itself that it is
the word of God; that testimony is the witness of God himself, which
whoso doth not accept and believe, he doth what in him lies to make God
a liar (417).
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps
11:3). May the Lord grant us faith to believe in the precepts and promises
of His forever infallible and inerrant Word so that we might begin to
understand and appreciate the twin doctrines of 100% inspiration (VPI)
and 100% preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures.
191
25
DID GOD PROMISE TO PRESERVE HIS WORDS?
Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7
Quek Suan Yew
Psalm 12:6-7 states, The words of the LORD are pure words: as
The teaching from these two verses appears quite clear that God would
preserve His Holy Word forever. Yet many have argued otherwise. They
say that the preservation in verse 7 refers to people only.
Those who interpret Psalm 12:7 to mean people and not the words
of God say that since the pronominal suffix in keep them (v7a) is in the
masculine gender (plural) and the words of the LORD (v6) is in the
feminine gender (plural), the pronoun them must refer to people.
They argue that for them to refer to Gods words the pronominal suffix
must also be in the feminine gender agreeing with its antecedent and
related noun.
The above grammatical argument against the preservation of Gods
words in Psalm 12:6-7 is false. Gesenius, a Hebrew Grammarian, wrote,
Through a weakening in the distinction of gender masculine suffixes
(especially in the plural) are not infrequently used to refer to feminine
substantives (E Kautzsch, ed, Gesenius Hebrew Grammar, 2nd ed by A E
Cowley [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910], 440, sect O). Besides Psalm
12:7, here are a few other examples from the OT where this occurs:
(1) Genesis 31:9, Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your
[masculine plural pronoun suffixrefering to Rachel and Leah]
father, and given them to me.
(2) Genesis 32:15, Thirty milch camels with their [masculine plural
pronoun suffixreferring to the thirty female camels] colts, forty
kine, and ten bulls, twenty she asses, and ten foals.
192
Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?
(3) Exodus 1:21, And it came to pass, because the midwives feared
God, that he made them [masculine plural pronoun suffix a
reference to the midwives] houses.
Thus, according to the Hebrew language, it is most legitimate to
take the masculine plural pronominal suffix them (v7a) to refer to the
feminine plural words of the LORD in verse 6. It is eisegesis to insist
that the pronoun them must mean people only, not words.
Anti-preservationists also argue that the pronominal suffix in
preserve them (v7b) is in the singular, and so the KJV translators were
wrong to render it as them (plural). It is true that the pronominal suffix
for preserve them in verse 7b is a third person masculine singular suffix
(him). Why did the KJV translators translate it as them? The answer is
in the attaching of the energetic nun (the Hebrew letter n) to the
pronominal suffix. When this occurs an additional rule applies in the
Hebrew language. It is important to note that there is no masculine plural
pronominal suffix in the third person when the energetic nun is applied to
a verb (see Gesenius, 157-8,l sect 4, I). Hence the Scripture writer,
through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, used the singular masculine
pronominal suffix, retaining the same gender as in keep them in verse
7a. It is again very legitimate and consistent with Hebrew grammar for
the KJV translators to translate the masculine singular pronominal suffix
with the energetic nun as a masculine plural pronoun them.
When we speak of context, it is the immediate context that is
considered first, and not the distant context. The immediate context
speaks of the words of the Lord. Hence the preservation and keeping
(guarding) would be the words of the Lord. We know that the grammar
and syntax allow it. Verse 6 is what is known as an emblematic
parallelism where the purity of Gods Word is likened to the sevenfold
purification (as pure as you can ever get) process of purging silver of
every bit of dross leaving behind the purest silver (see Tremper Longman
III, How to Read the Psalms [Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988],
100). This verse teaches that the words of the Lord are without error or
fallibility and it is 100% perfect.
Verse 7 is known as a synonymous parallelism where the second
line restates what is mentioned in the first, but using different words
(Longman III, 99). As mentioned before, the use of the energetic nun
emphasises the act of preservation. This preservation is forever. The
193
relationship between verses 6 and 7 is what we call synthetic parallelism

where the second verse adds or expands on the teaching mentioned in the
first verse. These two verses combined teach that the words of God are
forever perfect; like silver purified seven times, they will be preserved by
God for eternity.
The contrast within the psalm would be the words of these evil men
versus the words of the Lord. These evil men speak vanity and flattery
(v2), and boast that their words will prevail and no one is lord over them
(v4). The psalmist counters this by declaring that it is the words of the
Lord that will prevail over the words of the evil ones. This is the
assurance and comfort that the Lord gives to His people. Do not fear the
words of these evil flatterers and boasters; trust in the words of the Lord
that is purified seven times as opposed to the words of the evil men
which are vain, proud and stem from a double heart (v2). God will keep
(guard) His holy words and preserve (action is emphasised by the
energetic nun) them from this generation forever. The Lord gave this
verbal assurance to that generation and after because He knew they
needed it. Gods people were distressed by the many wicked and
confusing words that came from proud and evil men. But the thrice holy
and perfect God encouraged His people by reminding them that His
words and promises are ever true and will forever remain.
Do we have a perfect Bible today? The faith of the believers was put
to the test. They had to choose whether to believe and trust in the
inerrant, infallible and divinely inspired and preserved Word of God
Almighty or the errant, fallible words of sinful men. Decision and
decisiveness are needed today. Is your faith based on the pure words of
God or the proud words of men? Choose you this day whom you will
believe.
194
26
JESUS VIEW OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURE
An Exposition of Matthew 5:17-19
Prabhudas Koshy
Introduction
No Christian should hold on to any view that contradicts what Jesus
has taught. Today, there is much confusion and contention among
Christian teachers and leaders on the subject of the infallibility and
preservation of the Scripture. But as committed Christians, we cannot
afford to be confused or misled by false views concerning the Scripture,
especially when Christ has unequivocally stated His view for us to hold
on to. Jesus affirmed the infallibility and preservation of the Scripture by
saying: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I
am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till
law, till all be fulfilled... (Matthew 5:17-19). To understand Jesus
teaching on the infallibility and preservation of the Scripture, we shall
study His words found in Matthew 5:17-19.
Matthew records these words of Christ as part of the Sermon on the
Mount. In verse 18, for the first time in His sermon, Jesus used the
authoritative and dogmatic formula I say unto you; and He repeats it
again in verse 20: For I say unto you ... This suggests to us that Jesus
really expects our total attention on the words that follow so that we may
study them and observe them as cardinal doctrine and practice. There
should be no contention about these explicit words of Jesus about the
Scripture. His view about the Scripture, expressed in Matthew 5:17-19,
should be our view always.
It would be very helpful if we can recollect the historical and
scriptural background of the passage under our consideration to get the
real feel of its emphasis.
195
Historical and Scriptural Background

Historical Background: Since John the Baptist introduced Christ to
the world, the eyes of everyone in Israel were upon Him. He appeared to
be very different from the scribes and Pharisees. He did not follow the
prevailing theology of His day and refused to identify Himself with any
of the sects of His time. He disregarded their traditions as well as their
extraneous and legalistic rules. As a friend of publicans and sinners, He
proclaimed love and grace. His meekness and humility made Him
distinguishable from all other religious teachers who were proud, boastful
and hypocritical. He preached forgiveness of sins and dispensed mercy.
Consequently, the people and the Jewish leaders wondered if He was
destroying all the absolutes of the Old Testament Scripture for some new
teaching. Many were inclined to think that He intended to subvert the
authority of Gods Word.
So Jesus came forward to remove their doubts and said, in effect,
What you see and hear is nothing new at all. I did not come to remove
the Old Testament law but to reiterate and fulfil it. So His amazing
manifesto is in direct harmony with the Old Testament, though it was in
direct confrontation with their thinking. When the scribes and Pharisees
were making the traditions binding upon people, Jesus was talking about
grace and mercy. But Jesus told them that they had dragged the divine
standard so low that it was necessary to raise it again. Having a greater
commitment to the law than the most scrupulous scribe or Pharisee, Jesus
proceeded to support the unfailing and lasting authority of the Scripture.
Scriptural Context: In Matthew 5:3-12, Jesus gives a list of the
characteristics of a true Christian. Then, in verses 13 and 16, He
emphasised what a true believer ought to be and how he should act. From
verses 17 to 20, Jesus shows how it is possible to be like what He taught
us to be. Here He shows us how to live out the Beatitudes and be the salt
and light in a decaying and darkened world; certainly not by lowering
Gods standard that is written, but by striving to live in complete
obedience to all that God has revealed, even to the jot and tittle. This
was, obviously, a shocking appeal to the society of Jesus day, which
obeyed only what it wanted to.
Jesus introduces the key to a righteous life as nothing else but
keeping of Gods law. The only way to have true righteousness is to go
beyond the phoney externalism of the scribes and Pharisees, to the
196
Jesus View of the Holy Scripture
inward righteousness that is only wrought by the power and authority of

Gods Word. Therefore, when Jesus came, He did not abolish the Old
Testament but He reinforced it.
Jesus Adheres Himself to the Whole of the Scripture

To understand how extensive and emphatic Jesus declaration of His
view of the Scripture is, the words He used must be carefully considered.
First of all, what did Jesus mean when He referred to the law or the
prophets? The term law can be a reference to the Ten Commandments
or the first five books of Moses, or to the whole Old Testament. But
usually, the Jews used the word when they were talking about the oral
scribal traditions that they had been receiving from various rabbis.
Now when Jesus said, Think not that I am come to destroy the
law, He was not talking about the traditions of men. By using the
definite article the law, the multitude should have understood that Jesus
was talking about the law of God. But how do we know whether Jesus
was referring to the Ten Commandments or the Pentateuch or the whole
Old Testament? Verse 17 settles it, when it says: the law, or the
prophets. In the Gospel of Matthew, the law and the prophets is used
four times (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40), with reference to the
whole of the Old Testament. Therefore, we can confidently say that the
law in this passage in Matthew 5 refers to the whole Old Testament.
Interestingly, in 5:17 the law and prophets are not connected by
the conjunction and (Greek kai) as in the other three places mentioned
above. Here instead of kai, Matthew uses the adversative or (Greek e).
Lenski comments: The adversative divides the Old Testament into two
parts: The law or Pentateuch; the prophets or all the rest of the Old
Testament. In other words, the word or implies that the attitude taken
by Christ is the same towards both. Thus, Jesus most emphatically
proclaims His full adherence to the whole of the Old Testament.
Another term that stresses His total adherence to the Scripture is
fulfil, when He said: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (5:17).
Now the question before us isIn what way did Christ fulfil the law
and the prophets? Many commentators argue that Christ fulfilled the
law and the prophets in two different ways. The prophets are fulfilled in a
predictive fashion: what they predict comes to pass and is thereby
fulfilled. The law, some say, is fulfilled by confirming the law in its
197
deeper meaning while others say Jesus fulfilled the law by dying on the
cross, thus satisfying the demands of the law against all who would
believe in Him. Though these ideas are established elsewhere in the New
Testament, the emphasis that Matthew conveys is more extensive.
Elsewhere, Matthew records Jesus as saying, For all the prophets and
the law prophesied until John (Matthew 11:13). Not only do the
prophets prophesy, but the law also prophesies. In other words, the entire
Old Testament has a prophetic function and Jesus came to fulfil the Old
Testament. In Matthew 5:17, therefore, we must rid ourselves of
conceptions of fulfilment which are too narrow. Jesus fulfilled the entire
Old Testamentthe law and the prophets, in many ways. Because they
point towards Him, He had certainly not come to abolish them, but rather,
to fulfil them in a rich diversity of ways. In summary, we can say that
Jesus life and ministry were not in opposition to the Old Testament, but
in fulfilment of all that it says.
Jesus Affirms That Every Letter of the Scripture Will Be

Preserved
Thus, after declaring His total adherence to the Scripture, He states
His view of the Scripture: For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and
earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled (verse 18). As we noticed before, the law in this verse also
refers to the entire Old Testament. It would be unwarranted if we say the
law refers only to the legal requirements, especially when we study
verse 18 in the light of verse 17. Thus, referring to the entire Old
Testament, He wishes to make a strong assertion when He says, For
verily I say unto you. The word verily is a translation of the Greek
term amen which is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for truth.
Therefore, it generally identifies something true, faithful or absolute. This
expression, thus, explains to us how highly Jesus regards the Scripture,
and how important the following statement is of His view of the Scripture
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Jesus then tells us how long the Scripture will continue to be
unerring and authoritativetill heaven and earth pass. In other words,
Jesus was emphasizing the relative imperishability of Gods Word, by
saying that it would be here even when the universe passed out of its
present existence.
198
Then He continues to express His view in the most exhaustive way

by saying, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all
be fulfilled. A jot (or yodh) refers to the smallest letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, which is very similar to an apostrophe. A tittle is an
appendage or portion of the letter, a mark by which one letter is
distinguished from another. So what Jesus is saying is that not even the
tiniest Hebrew letter shall pass from this law until all would be fulfilled.
If God does not preserve every letter of the Scripture, then the truth
of Gods Word would be lost. The purity and authority of the whole
Scripture are dependent on every section of the Scripture, every book,
every chapter, every word, and every letter. Even the smallest letter or a
portion of a letter cannot be lost, if the authority and infallibility of the
Scripture have to remain unaffected all through time. The Lord Jesus
assures us that His Word will be preserved true to every letter. We may
have difficulty in understanding how the Lord could speak of absolutely
perfect preservation of the Scripture in its originals, when there were
cases of scribal errors in manuscripts. Though scribal errors have
occurred in some copies, the Lord promises to keep His Word free from
all such human errors for His people to believe and obey.
Today, we have no need to approach the Scripture with doubt. It is
divinely preserved from all impurity. Through the history of the church,
we can see how God providentially guided godly men not only to
determine the books of the canon of the Scripture, but also to recognise
the exact original words of those books for an obedient life. In the
Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James Bible, we have these
perfectly preserved texts through the ages, recognised by godly men
during the days of the Reformation, and continued to be used by the
church for the past 400 years approximately. A perfectly preserved Bible
to the end of timesthat is what the Lord Jesus promised in Matthew
5:18, and that is what we have today.
Jesus Warns Us Not to Disregard Even the Least

Commandment of the Scripture
Because every letter of the Scripture will be preserved to the end of
days, Jesus warns us about setting aside or disannulling any portion of
the Scripture. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
199
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (verse 19). The word
therefore takes our attention backward, and gives us one reason why
we should not disregard the Scripture. The reason is, as we found earlier,
that Gods Word is imperishable.
Then Jesus forewarns us of the consequences, if we disregard even a
smallest portion of His WordWhosoever therefore shall break one of
these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven. The word break (Greek luo) means to
loose, release, nullify or destroy. Therefore, the idea conveyed is if
anyone releases himself from an obligation to obey or to teach exactly
what it says, even the least of it, he will be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven. This suggests that such men will face the Lords judgment for
unbelief and loss of reward.
Another significant phrase that should be noticed is these
commandments. The expression these commandments must be
understood within the context since any expressed antecedent for the
term these is absent. In the previous verses, Jesus referred to the whole
Old Testament and claimed that He came not to destroy but to fulfil them.
Since Jesus is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets (or the
whole Old Testament points to Him), our responsibility is not only to
obey the commandments of the Old Testament but also His teachings as
found in the New Testament. We must also take heed of the words of the
New Testament writers for they were written as inspired by His Spirit.
Conclusion
In this passage, we have seen how our Lord promises to preserve all
the letters of His Word that His people may have an infallible, everlasting
Scripture. As disciples of Jesus, we must also hold the same view of the
Scripture, which Jesus proclaimed. To doubt the perfect preservation of
the Bible, as many have done, is to simply deny Jesus promise. That
would also mean to drift away from the perfect standard of righteousness.
The message the Lord gives in Matthew 5:17-19 is: Fulfil Gods law, and
do not break even the least of His commandments, because His Word is
pre-eminent, permanent and pertinent till the end of days. All Christians
must affirm their allegiance to the Word of God. If anyone, therefore,
questions its perfect preservation, infallibility and authority, he cannot be
considered a faithful Christian, let alone a faithful Bible teacher. Dear
reader, it is time for us to take heed of our Saviours words more than
200
ever before, and uphold His perfect Word by believing, obeying and
proclaiming all of its words.
201
27
DID JESUS AND THE APOSTLES RELY ON
THE CORRUPT SEPTUAGINT?
Prabhudas Koshy
The Septuagint (aka LXX) or Greek translation of the OT is an
unreliable version both yesterday and today. We cannot be certain of the
authenticity of its readings. Its textual purity was questioned by
Thackeray who said, We are much more certain of the ipsissima verba
of the NT writers than of the original Alexandrian version of the OT
(ISBE, s.v. Septuagint).
It has been claimed that Jesus and the Apostles quoted the Greek
translation of the Old Testament, namely the Septuagint, even though
they knew that it was corrupt. Why this claim? This claim is made to
support the use of corrupted modern English versions of the Bible. It is
argued that since Jesus and the Apostles used a corrupt Greek translation
of the Old Testament, we today can also use corrupt modern versions of
the Bible. Some even allege that those who say that it is wrong to use a
corrupt version of the Bible are in danger of accusing our Lord and His
Apostles of sin. This allegation is inaccurate on two counts: (1) the
assumption that Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint is
false, and (2) the promotion or support of the use of corrupt versions
certainly dishonours Christ.
The claim that Jesus and the New Testament writers always used the
Septuagint to quote from the Old Testament is without biblical evidence.
It has been said that in the New Testament there are about 263 direct
quotations from the Old. However, many of these Old Testament
quotations in the New are significantly different from the Septuagint. If
Jesus and the Apostles relied on the Septuagint for all their Old
Testament quotations, such a difference would not have resulted.
There was no need for Jesus and the New Testament writers to rely
on the Septuagint to quote the Old Testament. Jesus Himself was the
Author of the Holy Scriptures. He could quote Hebrew Scriptures and
202
On the Corrupt Septuagint
translate them infallibly into Greek. As far as the Apostles were

concerned, the Holy Spirit was their Chief Aide who supervised their
writing of the Scriptures. There is nothing against them citing the Old
Testament and translating the words into Greek themselves. Let us be
mindful that both Testaments were inspired of the Holy Spirit; and that
the Spirit was their infallible Author.
The New Testaments translations and interpretations of the Old
Testament are not taken from any corrupt human work. Whatever the
New Testament says about the Old Testament, whether it is a translation
into Greek or an interpretation, it must be viewed as the infallible and
inerrant work of the Holy Spirit. Every word of the New Testament,
including quotations, interpretations and applications of the Old
Testament, is not from any corrupt human translation but from the Holy
Spirit Himself. As such it is highly unlikely that Jesus and the New
Testament writers quoted from the corrupt Septuagint as some allege.
Moreover, Jesus made no mention of the Greek Septuagint. Neither
did He assert that His quotations were taken from the Septuagint, nor
mention the Septuagint. However, He did speak about the Hebrew text of
the Old Testament. In Matthew 5:18, He referred to the Hebrew text of
the Old Testament when He said, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
all be fulfilled. The jot (or yodh) is the smallest letter in the Hebrew
alphabet; and the tittle is a portion of a letter that distinguishes two
similarly written letters. Here Jesus spoke authoritatively about the
accuracy of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Jesus also declared
His commitment to every letter of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament
(Matt 5:17-18). It is impossible to think that Jesus who affirmed His
absolute commitment to every letter of the Hebrew Text of the Old
Testament would quote or endorse its corrupt translation. If Jesus used
the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jots
and the tittles. He obviously used the Hebrew Scriptures and not its
corrupt Greek version!
In addition, the descriptive designation of the Old Testament used
by Jesus in the New Testament reveals that He used the Hebrew
Scriptures instead of the Greek Septuagint. He often referred to the Old
Testament as (1) The Law and the Prophets and (2) The Law of
Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. In Luke 24:44 we read, And he
said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was
203
yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
The reason for such a reference to the Old Testament was because the
Hebrew Bible was then divided into three parts: the Law, the Prophets
and the Writings. The Septuagint contained no such division. Not only
that, the Septuagint contained the spurious Apocryphal books that have
been mixed together with the canonical Old Testament. How could Jesus
have possibly referred to the corrupt Septuagint if the order of the biblical
books had already been hopelessly mixed up with the non-inspired
Apocryphal books?
If Jesus had spoken only of His commitment to the Hebrew text of
the Old Testament, how can one claim that Jesus relied on the corrupt
Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures? Certainly such a
statement is a misrepresentation of Christ.
Certainly the conduct of our Lord and the Apostles was very
different from some of the modern day ministers who accept versions
produced by men who deny the inspiration, infallibility and inerrancy of
the Scriptures. Does it not dishonour Christ to allege that He and His
Apostles quoted a version that was calculated to diminish the clarity and
glory of true doctrines? It is startling that some would dare to attribute
such a heinous act to Him and His Apostles! It is impossible to think that
Christ who is holy, just and truthful would endorse a translation that
disregards the truth and the glory of the Almighty. The very nature of
God would tell us that Christ would never have sanctioned the use of a
corrupt Greek version of His Word. It is those who want to use inferior or
corrupt modern versions, who say that Christ endorsed the corrupt
Septuagint. Certainly we want to have no part in such an erroneous view
of Christ.
In the pattern of Christ and His Apostles, we accept no inferior or
corrupt translation, but the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures behind the KJV.
As far as English translations go, the KJV is the bestthe most faithful
and most reliable.
204
28
LOST WORDS IN OUR BIBLE?
Jeffrey Khoo
Introduction
The Word of God is forever infallible and inerrant. The Church
today has a 100% Perfect Bible without any mistake because God
promised to preserve His inspired words to the last jot and tittle (Matt
5:18). Thus, (1) the inspired Scriptures were never lost but always
preserved without any corruption or missing words; (2) the Sacred
Scriptures are always infallible and inerrant, and supremely authoritative
not only in times past, but also todaySola Scriptura!
As Bible-believing Christians, there is a need to defend the
preserved words of God not just in the NT but also in the OT. Today, our
OT Scriptures are being questioned by some who do not believe that God
has preserved every jot and tittle of His words in the OT, going against
what Jesus promised in Matthew 5:18. They say that some insignificant
or redundant words of the OT have already been totally lost and nowhere
to be found. According to them, these lost words contribute to the socalled scribal errors in our OT Scripture.
This article seeks to assure all believers that the same God who had
originally inspired His OT words has also continuously preserved all of
His words to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18). Christians can truly live by
Gods every word (Matt 4:4) because every word of God has been kept
intact without any word lost.
Jot-and-Tittle Preservation
The OT Scriptures were first given to IsraelGods chosen nation.
Romans 3:1-2 tells us that God had committed to the Jews the
safekeeping and copying of the Holy Scriptures. Knowing well the divine
nature of the Scriptures, that the words of the sacred pages were the very
words of the Almighty God, they copied the Scriptures with great
precision and accuracy employing very strict rules. For instance: (1) No
205
word or letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an
authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each
word before writing it. (2) The revision of a roll must be made within
30 days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One
mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet; if three mistakes were found on
any page, the entire manuscript was condemned. (3) Every word and
every letter was counted, and if a letter were omitted, an extra letter
inserted, or if one letter touched another, the manuscript was condemned
and destroyed at once.1 These very strict rules of transcription show how
precious the Jews had regarded the inspired words of God, and how
precise their copying of these inspired words must have been. Such strict
practices in copying give us strong encouragement to believe that we
have the real Old Testament, the same one which our Lord had and which
was originally given by inspiration of God.2
The words of the Scriptures are important (Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4, Luke
4:4). God uses His words to communicate His Truth so that we might
know who and what He is and how we might be saved through Him. The
Bible clearly tells us that it is Gods written words (pasa grapheAll
Scripture) that are inspired (2 Tim 3:16), and from these inspired words
come all the doctrines that are sufficient and profitable for the spiritual
growth and maturity of the believer (2 Tim 3:17). The Bible also clearly
says that God Himself will preserve all His inspired words to the jot and
tittle without the loss of any word, syllable or letter (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18,
24:35).
Now if we have the inspired, infallible and inerrant words of God
today preserved in the traditional and Reformation Scriptures, then how
do we explain the differences or discrepancies found in the Bible
especially those found in 1 Samuel 13:1, 2 Chronicles 22:2, and many
other places. Can these be due to scribal errors?
Since God has preserved His inspired words to the last iota and no
words are lost but all kept pure and intact in the original language
Scriptures, we must categorically deny that our Bible contains any
mistake or error (scribal or otherwise). But it is troubling that certain
evangelicals and fundamentalists would rather choose to deny the present
infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures by considering the
discrepancies found in 1 Samuel 13:1 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 and other
like passages to be actual instead of apparent discrepancies, and calling
them scribal errors.
206
Lost Words in our Bible?
No Lost Word and No Scribal Error in 2 Chronicles 22:2

A denial of the verbal preservation of the Scriptures will invariably
lead one to believe that some words of God have been lost and remain
lost leading to a scribal error view of the OT Scriptures. For instance,
W Edward Glenny denies that God has perfectly preserved His Word so
that no words have been lost. He says, The evidence from the OT text
suggests that such is not the case. We might have lost a few words .3
Based on his lost words view of the Bible, he was quick to point out
obvious discrepancies in the OT like 2 Chronicles 22:2. He
pontificates,
In 1 Chronicles 8:26 [sic], the KJV states that Ahaziah was twenty-two
when he began to reign; the parallel in 2 Chronicles 22:2 says that he began
to reign at the age of forty-two. ... These obvious discrepancies in the KJV
and the Hebrew manuscripts on which it is based show that none of them
perfectly preserved the inspired autographa.4
Now, know that 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads forty-two in the KJV. A

number of the modern versions like the NASV, NIV, and ESV read
twenty-two instead. So which is the original, inspired reading: fortytwo (in KJV), or twenty-two (in NASV, NIV, and ESV)? In making
such a textual decision, we must have a perfect standard, and that
infallible and inerrant standard is the inspired and preserved Hebrew
Scripture, and not any translation ancient or modern.
precisely as forty-two as accurately translated in the KJV. If every
Hebrew manuscript reads forty-two in 2 Chronicles 22:2, then on what
basis do the NASV, NIV, and ESV change it to twenty-two? They
correct the original Hebrew text! Should not it be the other way round?
Why do they do this? They do this because of their fallacious
assumption that (1) God did not preserve His words infallibly, (2) lost
words exist in the Hebrew text, and (3) 2 Chronicles 22:2 is an obvious
discrepancy (cf 2 Kgs 8:26). Thus, Glenny and all such nonpreservationists are quick to use a fallible translation (eg, LXX) to
207
correct the infallible Hebrew Text! This is no different from someone

using the NIV today to correct any part of the Hebrew Text according to
his whim and fancy! But Glenny calls it conjectural emendation5 which
sounds scholarly but it is pure guesswork. Can a translation be more
inspired than or superior to the original language text? Can a translation
or version (whatever the language) be used to correct the Hebrew?
Glennys method of explaining such obvious discrepancies in the Bible
is troubling for it displays (1) a sceptical attitude towards the numerical
integrity of Gods Word, (2) a critical readiness to deny the present
inerrancy of Scripture in historical details, and (3) a lackadaisical
approach towards solving difficulties in the Bible by conveniently
dismissing such difficulties as scribal errors.
passages is seen in Robert J Sargent who, by comparing (not correcting)
Scripture with Scripture, offered two possible solutions to the so-called
problem or error in 2 Chronicles 22:2. Sargent suggested that fortytwo could be either (1) Ahaziahs years counted from the beginning of
the dynasty founded by Omri, or (2) the year in which Ahaziah was
actually seated as king though anointed as one at twenty-two (2 Kgs
8:26).6 Whatever the answer may be, the truth and fact is: the inspired
and preserved Hebrew reading in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is forty-two and
not twenty-two, and no man has the right to change or correct Gods
Word by conjectural emendation, taking heed to the serious warning
not to add to or subtract from the Holy Scriptures (Rev 22:18-19).
No Lost Word and No Scribal Error in 1 Samuel 13:1

king; and the RSV has, Saul was years old when he began to reign.
Which of the above is correct? The only way whereby we can ascertain
the correct reading is to go to the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew Bible since
day one reads Ben-shanah Shaoul, literally, A son of a year (was) Saul,
or idiomatically, Saul was a year old.
208
Lost Words in our Bible?
began to reign? Scholars and translators who do not believe in the jotand-tittle preservation of Scripture say that this is an actual discrepancy
in the Hebrew Text which they attribute to a scribal error. This is why
Michael Harding in a mistitled bookGods Word in Our Handswrote,
[I]n 1 Samuel 13:1-2 the Masoretic Text states that Saul was one year of
age (ben-shanahliterally son of a year) Some ancient Greek
manuscripts read thirty years instead of one year, On account of
my theological conviction regarding the inerrancy of the autographa, I
believe the original Hebrew text also reads thirty, even though we do not
currently possess a Hebrew manuscript with that reading.7
Harding and those like him fail to apply the logic of faith to the
promise of God that He will preserve and has preserved every iota of His
inspired words. This leads them to conclude that a word is lost and 2
Chronicles 22:2 contains a scribal error even when there is no such
error to begin with. They change the text when the text needs no
changing. They replace divine words with human words. Instead of
attributing error to the translation (LXX, NASV, NIV, RSV), they rather
fault the inspired and preserved Hebrew Text and treat it as an actual
discrepancy even when there is absolutely none. This has caused many
Bible believers to doubt Gods Word: Do we really have Gods infallible
and inerrant Word in our hands? Many are indeed stumbled by such
allegations of error in the Bible, and are questioning whether they can
really trust the Scriptures at all if there is no such thing as a complete and
perfect Word of God today.
explanation is offered by Matthew Poole who wrote,
[Saul] had now reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in which
time these things were done, which are recorded in chap. xi., xii., to wit,
peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2 Sam. ii.10.8
209

Conclusion
The inspired words of the Hebrew OT are all the words of the
Hebrew Masoretic Text (Ben Chayyim). The Trinitarian Bible Society
regards the Ben Chayyim OT Text underlying the KJV to be the
preserved and definitive Text, and that the correct OT reading is to be
found in precisely this Text.9
The Biblical doctrine of the jot-and-tittle preservation of the Holy
Scriptures affirms a 100% infallible and inerrant Bible today! The
Written Foundation of our Judeo-Christian Faith is sure and secure for
the word of our God shall stand for ever (Isa 40:8). Amen!
Notes
H S Miller, General Biblical Introduction, 4th ed (Houghton, Word-Bearer,
1947), 184-185.
2
Ibid, 185.
3
Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 121.
4
Ibid, 115.
5
Ibid, 114.
6
Robert J Sargent, A Scribal Error in 2 Chronicles 22:2? No! The
Burning Bush 10 (2004): 90-92.
7
The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald International,
2003), 360-361.
8
Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Mclean: MacDonald,
nd), 1:542.
9
Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture, Trinitarian Bible Society
Quarterly Report, April-June 2005, 10-11.
1
210
29
MISTAKES IN THE BIBLE?
Jeffrey Khoo
A young believer once asked his pastor this question, Pastor, are
there any mistakes in the Bible? The pastor assured the young believer
with what he claims to be an honest answer, There are no mistakes in
the Bible that should cause you any worry. Such an answer is hardly
honest but the hissing of the old serpent, Yea, hath God said? (Gen
3:1).
As faithful believers, we affirm without doubt the Bible to be totally
infallible and inerrant, our sole and supreme authority of faith and
practice. We affirm the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal
Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures and identify VPI and
VPP Texts to be the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Texts on
which the Reformation Biblethe King James Bibleis based. But
what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God
without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as
it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest
overcome when thou art judged. (Rom 3:3-4).
Unbelief of VPI and/or VPP has caused some to fall short of
believing that the Bible is 100% perfect, without any mistake. Where are
the mistakes? you ask. Let us look at a few of the so-called mistakes,
and with the logic of faith, the Christian who loves the Lord and His
Word will see that they are not at all mistakes.
Forty-two or Twenty-two?
Those who deny VPP believe that some words of God have been
lost and remain lost leading to a scribal error view of the OT
Scriptures. For instance, W Edward Glenny denies that God has perfectly
preserved His Word so that no words have been lost. He says, The
evidence from the OT text suggests that such is not the case. We might
have lost a few words (One Bible Only?, p121). Based on his lost
words view of the Bible, he was quick to point out obvious
211
discrepancies in the OT like 2 Chronicles 22:2, and pontificates, These

obvious discrepancies in the KJV and the Hebrew manuscripts on which
it is based show that none of them perfectly preserved the inspired
autographa. (One Bible Only?, p115).
Now, know that 2 Chronicles 22:2 reads forty-two in the KJV. A
number of the modern versions like the NASV, NIV, and ESV read
twenty-two instead. So which is the original, inspired reading: fortytwo (in KJV), or twenty-two (in NASV, NIV, and ESV)? In making
such a textual decision, we must have a perfect standard, and that
infallible and inerrant standard is the inspired and preserved Hebrew
Scripture, and not any translation ancient or modern.
precisely as forty-two as accurately translated in the KJV. If every
Hebrew manuscript reads forty-two in 2 Chronicles 22:2, then on what
basis do the NASV, NIV, and ESV change it to twenty-two? They
correct the original Hebrew text! This is Ruckmanism no less!
passages seeks to compare (not correct) Scripture with Scripture. There
are two possible solutions to the so-called problem or error in 2
Chronicles 22:2. Forty-two could be either (1) Ahaziahs years counted
from the beginning of the dynasty founded by Omri, or (2) the year in
which Ahaziah was actually seated as king though anointed as one at
twenty-two (2 Kgs 8:26). Whatever the answer may be, the truth and
fact is: the inspired and preserved Hebrew reading in 2 Chronicles 22:2 is
forty-two and not twenty-two, and no man has the right to change or
correct Gods Word by conjectural emendation, taking heed to the
serious warning not to add to or subtract from the Holy Scriptures (Rev
22:18-19).
212
Mistakes in the Bible?
One Year or 30/40/ Years?

king; and the RSV and ESV has, Saul was years old when he began
to reign. Which of the above is correct? The only way whereby we can
ascertain the correct reading is to go to the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew
Bible since day one reads Ben-shanah Shaoul, literally, A son of a year
(was) Saul, or idiomatically, Saul was a year old.
began to reign? Scholars and translators who do not believe in the jotand-tittle preservation of Scripture say that this is an actual discrepancy
in the Hebrew Text which they attribute to a scribal error. This is why
Michael Harding wrote, [I]n 1 Samuel 13:1-2 the Masoretic Text states
that Saul was one year of age (ben-shanahliterally son of a year)
Some ancient Greek manuscripts [ie, translations or versions] read
thirty years instead of one year, I believe the original Hebrew text
also reads thirty, even though we do not currently possess a Hebrew
manuscript with that reading. (Gods Word in Our Hands, pp360-361).
Harding and those like him who deny that God has preserved every
jot and tittle of His inspired words (Matt 5:18) conclude that a word is
lost and 1 Samuel 13:1 contains a scribal error even when there is no
such error to begin with. Instead of attributing error to the translation
(NASV, NIV, RSV, ESV), they rather fault the inspired and preserved
Hebrew Text and treat it as an actual discrepancy even when there is
absolutely none. This has caused many Bible believers to doubt Gods
Word: Do we really have Gods infallible and inerrant Word in our
hands? Many are indeed stumbled by such allegations of error in the
Bible, and are questioning whether they can really trust the Scriptures at
all if there is no such thing as a complete and perfect Word of God today.
explanation is offered by Matthew Poole who wrote, [Saul] had now
reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in which time these
213
things were done, which are recorded in chap. xi., xii., to wit, peaceably,
or righteously. Compare 2 Sam. ii.10.
Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar?
These two namesNebuchadnezzar and Nebuchadrezzarare
found in Jeremiah 29 verse 3 and verse 21 respectively to refer to the
same king. Bible and Truth deniers who do not believe in VPI and/or VPP
are quick to conclude that the Bible here is in error; they call it a spelling
or a scribal error.
But we who believe in the present perfection and absolute authority
of the Scriptures have always believed and defended the total inerrancy
of Scripture, its VPI and VPP, based on the logic of faith. So, how do we
explain the two spellings, one with an n and the other with an r. It is
really a simple solution requiring childlike faith on Gods pure and
perfect words (Matt 4:4, Rom 3:4, Heb 11:3, 6). The Bible being
historically true and accurate would have us know that there were two
ways of spelling the name of the Babylonian king. He could either be
called Nebuchadnezzar or Nebuchadrezzar. It is significant to note that
the switch from r to n is not uncommon in Semitic languages (eg,
Benhadad and Barhadad). Nebuchadnezzar then, would be the Hebrew
spelling, and Nebuchadrezzar the Aramaic spelling (re: International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia, sv, Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadrezzar). A
modern-day example would be Singapore (English) and Singapura
(Malay)both are correct spellings (not scribal errors) and refer to the
same country.
Big Fish or Whale?

There are those who fault KJV for calling the fish that swallowed
Jonah a whale for a whale they say is no fish but mammal. Were the
translators mistaken and not intelligent enough to know that a fish is no
mammal?
214
Mistakes in the Bible?
We do not believe there is any translation mistake here. The

technical or specific word for fish in the Greek is ichthus. But here in
Matthew 12:40, the Greek word is not ichthus but ketos (the equivalent to
the Hebrew haddag) which can mean either a large fish or a huge sea
creature. A whale though a mammal and not technically a fish
(ichthus) is nevertheless a sea creature and falls within the generic usage
of ketos. Spiros Zodhiates commented, Jon 1:17 tells us that God
prepared a great fish. He, who can do anything, could have made the fish
capable of swallowing Jonah, preserving him in its belly and then casting
him out again alive. God does not need to be assisted by natural
possibilities to perform a miracle. This term was in that day, as it is today,
common parlance for any kind of aquatic creature. Its non-technical
usage would allow for a mammal such as a whale and would therefore
contain no error. (The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New
Testament, sv ketos.). So, it is a misconception to think that the word
ketos cannot refer to a sea mammal like the whale. It is important to know
that the word ketos is a general word for any kind of creature that lives in
the sea, whether fish, shark, dolphin, or whale. The context determines
how the word is to be used, and the translation of ketos as whale in the
KJV is entirely valid and accurate. Hence, no error in the Greek, and no
error in the English translation, no error in Gods miraculous work, and
no error in Gods infallible Word.
215
30
GODS WORD IS SETTLED FOR EVER
(PSALM 119:89)
George Skariah
Introduction
How long does the purity of the Word last? Does it last only for one
generation, the generation that received the inspired Word? or does it
continue to remain holy, perfect, pure, and true, even for the generations
to come? There are several scriptural passages that talk about Gods
Word being preserved for ever. Psalm 12:6-7 says, The words of the
LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven
times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from
this generation for ever. The same thought has been echoed in several
other portions of the Scripture. The psalmist in Psalm 119 says, For
ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven (verse 89); Concerning
thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for
ever (verse 152); and Thy word is true from the beginning: and every
one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever (verse 160). In Isaiah
40:8, the prophet says, The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the
word of our God shall stand for ever. The Apostle Peter writes in 1 Peter
1:23-25, Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible,
by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as
grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth,
and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for
ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. In
this article, Psalm 119:89 will be discussed in detail.
Context
Psalm 119 is the locus classicus, when it comes to the doctrine of
the preservation of the Bible. This is the longest psalm with 176 verses
and the most elaborate of the Alphabetical Psalms. It consists of twentytwo groups of eight verses each. The first group has all its verses
216
Gods Word Is Settled For Ever (Psalm 119:89)
beginning with the Hebrew letter Aleph, the second with Beth, and so on
alphabetically. The Masoretes observed that in every verse of this psalm,
except verse 122, there is direct reference to the Word of God, using one
of these ten terms: law, way, testimony, precept, statute, commandments,
judgment, word, saying, and truth. Along with several themes concerning
the Word of God, the psalmist, in this psalm, talks about the nature of
Gods Word (see vv. 89, 144, 152, 160). There are several verses that talk
about Gods Word as true/truth (vv. 142, 151, 160).
The immediate context (vv. 81-88) is all about comfort from Gods
Word in times of affliction. In this section, the psalmist shows how he
was comforted by faith in Gods eternal Word while he was under
persecution. For that reason, he commends the worth of Gods Word. His
commendation of Gods Word is based on four reasons: (1) the stability
of Gods Word in heaven (v. 89); (2) the durable usefulness of it in every
age of the church (v. 90a); (3) by Gods Word, the earth is established (vv.
90b, 91); and (4) his own experience of deriving comfort and strength
from Gods Word in his affliction (v. 92).
The Eternal Nature of Gods Word (v. 89)

The psalmist says, For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in
heaven. Significantly, the psalmist places for ever in the beginning of
the sentence, followed by O LORD in the vocative, together adding
great emphasis to the statement. The adverb for ever indicates
indefiniteness of time. It is used in relation to Gods everlasting covenant
(Genesis 9:16; 17:7, 13, 19; Exodus 31:16), Gods law (Isaiah 59:21;
Psalm 119:160), Gods promises (promised dynasty of David: 2 Samuel
7:13, 16, 26), His relations with His people (1 Chronicles 29:18; Psalm
45:17), Messianic reign (Psalm 110:4; Isaiah 9:6), etc. Here it is used to
express the extent of the preservation of Gods Word, i.e., for ever, a
time that is indefinite in its extent. The same adverb is also used in verses
like Psalm 12:7; 119:152, 160; Isaiah 40:8; 59:21 (also in 1 Peter 1:23,
25), all referring to the same topic.
That which is settled for ever is thy word. What does it refer to?
Some people believe that it is a general designation for Gods
communication, whether spoken or written, although the vast majority of
its uses have direct application to the spoken, not the written word
(James G. Williams, Gods Word in Our Hands, 90-91). Without much
objection, one may accept that word could mean word spoken by God
217
since it has speech as its lexical meaning along with word. However,
this in no way minimizes ones understanding of word as Gods written
Word because the written Word of God is His breathed-out words.
The prophets in the Old Testament frequently used this word,
especially the construct phrase the Word of the LORD or its
counterpart the Word of God to refer to Gods revelation which they
received from the Lord and also to that which is already written. (For
example, see the superscriptions of the prophetical books such as Hosea
1:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Micah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:1; Haggai 1:1;
Zechariah 1:1; and Malachi 1:1; also see 1 Chronicles 17:3.) When the
Apostle Peter talks about the written Word of God (prophecy of the
scripture) in 2 Peter 1:20-21, he refers to it as the Word that was spoken,
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Significantly, the psalmist mentions the other synonyms such as
ordinances, law, precepts, testimonies, etc. in the same section,
all referring to the written Word of God. The psalmist, in Psalm 119,
constantly uses these synonyms along with word to refer to the written
revelation of God.
The psalmist uses the verb settled, which has the root meaning of
to set, to put, to place. It is in passive form (Niphal stem), and hence,
to be put, set. So, it has the sense of to be stationed, and stand firm.
Then the psalmist mentions the location of Gods Word standing firm, in
heaven. It is the eternal habitation of the infinite, eternal, and
unchangeable God.
What does the psalmist assert here? The psalmist affirms that Gods
Word is for ever certain and sure because it is for ever set firm in the
eternal heaven. Some say that this verse only talks about the
immutability of Gods truth and nothing has been said about the
durability of the text (J. G. Williams, 92). No one challenges the fact
that this verse talks about the immutability of Gods Word. However, the
point here is that this verse affirms more than the immutability of Gods
written revelation. As noted earlier, the adverb for ever is placed very
emphatically in the beginning of the sentence, and with the added
locative in heaven. By this, the psalmist emphasizes the durability as
well. Delitzsch comments on this verse, Eternal and imperishable in the
218
Gods Word Is Settled For Ever (Psalm 119:89)
constant verifying of itself is the vigorous and consolatory word of God,

to which the poet will ever cling. It has heaven as its standing-place, and
therefore it also has the qualities of heaven, and before all others, heavenlike stability (Psalms, 254). Plummer adds, However fleeting,
changeable and unsatisfactory are all things merely temporal; yet the
word of God is stable, unchangeable and everlasting. It depends upon his
truth and faithfulness, and these are so much a part of his nature that if he
were without them, he would cease to be God, vv. 89, 90, 91. The divine
faithfulness has never failed (W. S. Plummer, Studies in the Book of
Psalms, 1060).
Some people regard what verse 89 teaches to be God preserving His
Word primarily in heaven. William Barrick writes, . . . God preserves
His Word primarily in heaven. Gods revelatory Word is fixed firmly in
heaven. Regardless of what might happen to His Word on earth, it is
securely preserved in His mind (Ancient Manuscripts and Biblical
Exposition, The Masters Seminary Journal 9/1, 28). It is totally
illogical for God to preserve His Word perfectly in heaven and never care
about what is happening to His Word on earth. If God is concerned to
perfectly preserve His Word in heaven, by the same token, He is also
concerned to preserve His Word on earth. What is the point of God
having His perfect Word in heaven, and His church on earth having a
corrupt Bible! God has given His Word to His people on earth, for their
profitabilityfor doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). Therefore, it is imperative
that the church must have all of Gods Word always. D. A. Waite writes
along the same line, Some people say, Well, it is settled in Heaven but
not on earth. But God needs it less than we do; He knows His Word. We
are the ones who need it. He is using this verse, Psalm 119:89, to show us
that God has given us Words that are settled (Defending the King James
Bible, 7). The Word that is settled in heaven is also available to the
psalmist on earth and for that reason he commends the worth of Gods
Word.
Conclusion
Several points can be observed from this verse: (1) this verse begins
with an emphasis on the durability of Gods Word, for ever; (2) the
psalmist then mentions the content, it is thy word, the Word of the
219
LORD, the written revelation of God; (3) the verb settled explains the
nature, it is firmly set; (4) the location is the eternal habitat of the eternal
God; (5) the ever settled Word is ever available to men on earth for His
faithfulness is unto all generations; and therefore (6) the church on earth
has the certainty of every Word of God. For Gods children, this is a
comforting thought: they have all of Gods revealed words in their hands.
Therefore, they should love His Word and treasure it in their lives by
meditating upon it every day and building their lives in accordance with
Gods holy oracles.
220
31
UNDERMINING GODS WORD BY SUBTLE
STUDY BIBLES
Jeffrey Khoo
There are over 50 Study Bibles in the Christian market. Not all of
them are good. Many of them are gravely mistaken in their commentary
on Isaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign:
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name
Immanuel. Of late, this prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ has come
under attack. The view that Christ did not directly fulfill Isaiah 7:14 is
gaining popularity, and this is reflected in the Study Bibles. Many
commentators are saying that Christians in the past have misunderstood
Isaiah 7:14. They argue against translating the Hebrew, almah, as
virgin in an effort to prove that Isaiah 7:14 is not directly Messianic.
Isaiah 7:14 is considered to be literally fulfilled by a certain difficult-toidentify woman in the time when the prophecy was given.
Isaiah 7:14 Attacked in the Study Bibles

The majority of Study Bibles today teach that the prophecy of Isaiah
7:14 was fulfilled twice. Consider the following examples,
The Believers Study Bible, edited by W. A. Criswell,
7:14 Almah (Heb.) is one of two words translated as virgin. The other
term, betulah (Heb.), is very specific, only meaning virgin, whereas
almah is more general and can sometimes mean a young woman of
marriageable age. The ambiguity of this term is reflected in its being
translated virgin in some places and maiden in others. . . . it is puzzling
why Isaiah chose the ambiguous term, almah, over the more frequent and
specific one, betulah. The answer may be related to vv.16, 22, which
suggest a double fulfillment of the prophecy. The prophet may have used
almah instead of betulah because the impending birth which would be a
sign to Ahaz would not be a virgin birth, but the future birth of Immanuel
. . . would be the Virgin Birth.
221
The Evangelical Study Bible, edited by Harold Lindsell,

7:14 a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son. Before we can understand this
verse, we need to consider two Hebrew words. One is betulah and the other
almah. The former means virgin, and the latter an unmarried female.
Almah is used here. Its use in this context covers two cases. One has to do
with the wife of Isaiah and her newborn son (Isa. 8:14). Isaiahs wife was a
virgin until she was married. She was no longer a virgin when married. Of
course, one supposes that an unmarried female is a virgin. The second case
covers that of the virgin Mary. She was a virgin before the conception of
Jesus. And she remained a virgin then, because Joseph was not the father of
Jesus. The Holy Spirit was [sic]. Stated another way, Isaiahs wife was no
longer a virgin when she conceived; Mary was still a virgin after she
conceived, for she had not yet known a male. Interestingly, the Septuagint
translates almah by the use of the Greek word parthenos which means
virgin. And Matthew uses the word parthenos for Marys case. The word
almah thus covers both births involved in this prophecy and we learn that
Mahershalal-hash-baz, the son of Isaiah, had a human mother and father
and his birth was a natural one. Jesus, on the other hand, had a human
mother but not a human father. His birth was supernatural. Almah allows
for both prophetic views.
Life Application Bible, edited by Ronald A. Beers,

7:1416 The Hebrew word used here sometimes means virgin and
sometimes young woman. Its immediate use here refers to Isaiahs young
wife and her newborn son (8:14). This, of course, was not a virgin birth.
Gods sign was that before this child was old enough to talk, the two
invading kings would be destroyed. However, Matthew 1:23 tells us that
there was a further fulfillment of this prophecy, in that virgin (Mary)
conceived and bore a son, Emmanuel, the Christ.
The NIV Study Bible, edited by Kenneth Barker,

7:14 sign. A sign was normally fulfilled within a few years (see 20:3, 37:30;
cf. 8:18). virgin. May refer to a young woman betrothed to Isaiah (8:3),
who was to become his second wife (his wife presumably having died after
Shear-jashub was born). In Ge 24:43, the same Hebrew word (almah)
refers to a woman about to be married (see also Pr 30:19). Mt 1:23
apparently understood the woman mentioned here to be a type (a
foreshadowing) of the Virgin Mary. Immanuel. The name God with us
was meant to convince Ahaz that God could rescue him from his enemies. .
. . Immanuel is used again in 8:8, 10, and it may be another name for
Maher-shalal-Hash-Baz (8:3). If so, the boys names had complementary
significance. . . . Jesus was the final fulfillment of this prophecy, for he was
God with us in the fullest sense (Matt 1:23; cf. Isa 9:67).
222
Undermining Gods Word by Subtle Study Bibles
The Ryrie Study Bible, by Charles C. Ryrie,

7:116 Gods sign to Ahaz was that of a virgin (when the prophecy was
spoken, it probably referred to the woman, a virgin at that time, whom
Isaiah took later as his second wife, 8:14) and whose son would not be
more than 12 to 14 years old before Syria and Israel would be captured.
The virgin of Isaiahs prophecy is a type of the virgin Mary, who, by the
Holy Spirit, miraculously conceived Jesus Christ (see Matt 1:23). The
Hebrew word that is here translated virgin is found elsewhere in the O.T. in
Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8, Psa 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Song of Sol. 1:3, 6:8, and in
these instances refers only to a chaste maiden who is unmarried.
Spirit Filled Life Bible, edited by Jack W. Hayford,

7:14 This prophetic sign was given to Ahaz as an assurance of Judahs hope
in the midst of adversity. It therefore had an immediate, historical
fulfillment. Its usage in the NT shows that it also has a messianic
fulfillment. The Hebrew word for virgin (almah) means either a virgin
or a young woman of marriageable age. Isaiahs readers could have
understood it to be either. Messianically, it irrefutably refers to the Virgin
Mary (Matt 1:23; Luke 1:27), where the Greek parthenos (virgin) removes
any question. The optional form of the Hebrew word was essential for the
prophecy to serve the dual situation, relating both to the Messiahs birth in
the future and to a more immediate birth in the kingly line. A Son to Isaiahs
readers would have been an unidentified heir from Ahazs house, perhaps
his son Hezekiah. Messianically, it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.
The Student Bible, edited by Philip Yancey,

7:14 A Famous Sign. Like so many prophecies, this one probably had two
meanings: one for Isaiahs time and another much later. Isaiah urged King
Ahaz to seek a sign from God about Judahs safety from its neighbors.
Ahaz, notoriously stubborn and ungodly, refused.
Isaiah told the sign anyway: a young boy would be born, and before he
grew out of childhood Judahs feared enemies would be destroyed. . . . The
New Testament sees a further meaning in this prophecy, applying it to the
birth of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:23).
The Quest Study Bible, edited Marshall Shelley,

Is this a prediction of the Messiah? (7:1416) Like many prophecies, this
passage seems to have a double meaning. First, a child, perhaps another son
of Isaiah, would be born to a virgin (which could simply refer to a young
woman) during the time of Ahaz. By the time he was grown, Judahs two
enemies (Israel and Aram) would be destroyed. The second meaning was
later applied to the birth of Christ (Matt 1:23). The name Immanuel, God
with us, became a title for the Messiah.
223
In summary, the above Study Bibles say that (1) the word almah
has two meanings: a young woman of marriageable age, and a virgin;
(2) the virgin refers to either Ahazs wife or Isaiahs second wife (who
were virgins before marriage, but no longer virgins after that), and finally
to the virgin Mary; and (3) the son to be born refers to either
Mahershalalhashbaz or Hezekiah, and finally to Jesus Christ. Therefore,
Isaiah 7:14 has two meanings, requiring two fulfillments: (1) an
immediate fulfillment in a son born in the time of Isaiah, and (2) an
ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah. The insistence that the prophecy of
Isaiah 7:14 required an immediate fulfillment in the time it was written is
symptomatic of a Kaiserian approach to Scriptural interpretation already
discussed in the previous chapter.
It must be categorically stated that there was but one Virgin Birth
fulfilled only in Christ. This is clearly revealed in Matthew 1:2223:
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the
Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and
shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which
being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:2223 is the inspired
commentary on Isaiah 7:14. Matthew meant exactly what Isaiah meant in
his application of the Immanuel prophecy to Jesus Christ.
The wondrous story of the miraculous birth of the Lord Jesus Christ
in the Gospel account records the fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy
to its minutest detail. The Messiah was born of a virgin of the house of
David (Matt 1:1825, Luke 1:2638). It was the angel Gabriel who
brought the message from God that all this happened in order that Isaiah
7:14 might be fulfilled. The incarnate Son of God was truly the
Immanuel, for in every sense of the term, He was God with us. The
grandeur of the Immanuel prophecy demands a strictly Messianic
fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14.
The double fulfillment view of Isaiah 7:14 must be rejected. If a
predictive prophecy can have more than one fulfillment, then the question
of prediction and fulfillment is rendered dubious. If there can be more
than one fulfillment in a single prophecy, why stop at two then?
Hosea 11:1 has often been cited as an example of Matthean typology
as though the existence of such usage by the Apostle settles the issue
concerning his use of Isaiah 7:14. It must be pointed out that the analogy
is false. A comparison of Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1 reveals a significant
224
difference between the two passages. It should be noted that Hosea was
not giving a prophecy in 11:1, but reminding Israel of her past in an
attempt to prove that Israel had broken the covenantal relationship she
had with Jehovah. Isaiah 7:14, on the other hand, is undoubtedly
prophetic, and thus clearly demands a fulfillment. Isaiah 7:14 anticipated
a literal fulfillment. Hosea 11:1, on the other hand, had no indications
whatsoever that its statement was intended to be prophetic, and thus may
be legitimately used by Matthew, under divine inspiration, to introduce a
type.
Matthew 1:2223 is the anchor text which determines the meaning
of Isaiah 7:14. But some may question: Since the people in the time of
Isaiah did not have the benefit of the information given in Matthew 1:22
23, could they have seen Isaiah 7:14 to be strictly Messianic? Does Isaiah
7:14 itself provide sufficient information for them to understand that the
prophecy refers only to the coming Messianic Saviour? The answer is
yes.
Isaiah, the prophet, was at this time told to deliver a word of hope to
the distressed king (Isa 7:39). He declared to Ahaz that the plans of
Rezin and Pekah would be thwarted. It is significant to note that the Lord
told Isaiah to bring his son Shearjashub to meet Ahaz. The prophets sons
were meant for signs (Isa 8:18). Shearjashubs name meant a remnant
will return. It sought to confirm the promise of deliverance in the
prophecy of the Virgin Birth. God had already promised that the Davidic
throne would be permanent (2 Sam 7:1417). The Judean throne was
reserved for the Son of David, and not the Son of Tabeal. Thus, Isaiah
7:14 ought to be read in the light of the Messianic motif.
Who will this virgin-born Son be? Isaiah 9:6 tells us that this child is
God Himself. His name is not only Immanuel, but also Wonderful,
Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of
Peace. Verse 7 reveals that this child is Davids greater Son, Of the
increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the
throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it
with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever (2 Sam
7:817, cf. Acts 15:1417). Only the Lord Jesus Christ fits the
description of the Child in Isaiah 9:67. This climatic text of the Son
aptly closes the Immanuel section (Isa 7:19:7).
225
By virtue of the fact that God was going to give a miraculous sign to
the house of David in involving a virgin-born Son who bears the divine
title, Immanuel, it is necessary to conclude that this virgin-born Son of
God can be none other than the Messiah Himself.
The main question raised by those who oppose the strictly
Messianic view is this: What is the meaning of Isaiah 7:1516 in the light
of verse 14 if a strictly Messianic birth was intended?
In answer to this, it must first be said that there is no need to insist
on an eighth century fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 just because verses 1516
had a contemporary significance. The chronology of prophetic oracles is
not always sequential. To see a distant fulfillment of 7:14 and a near
fulfillment of 7:1516 posed no difficulty to the prophets bifocal
foresight. Tow explains,
Like a man looking out of his window into the distance, the seer and the
prophet, insofar as prophetic history is concerned, can see a panorama of
four mountain ranges, as illustrated above.1
The prophet was thus able to predict both immediate and future
events in different sections of the same passage all at the same time. In a
single vision, Isaiah saw the Virgin Birth of Christ in verse 14, and then
the imminent destruction of Rezin and Pekah in verses 1516.
Does Isaiah 7:14 need to be immediately fulfilled in order for it to
have an eighth century relevance? J. Barton Paynes insightful
observation is noteworthy. A prophecy, he wrote,
may serve as a valid force in motivating conduct, irrespective of the interval
preceding its historical fulfillment, provided only the contemporary
audience does not know when this fulfillment is to take place. Even as the
Lords second coming should motivate our faithful conduct, no matter how
distant it may be . . ., So Isa 7:14, on His miraculous first coming, was
equally valid for motivating Ahaz, 730 years before Jesus birth.2
Although this is reason enough, it still does not fully answer how
Isaiah 7:1516 is related to verse 14. Tow explains,
Though we know that the event of the birth of Christ through Mary did
not occur until 700 years afterwards, the prophet in ecstasy saw it as an
accomplished fact. In vivid sequences, he saw also the dissolution of the
Syria-Israel coalition in a matter of a few years, the period of early
infancy of a child when he should know between good and bad.3
226
This prophetic phenomenon was also observed by McClain, The

prophet sometimes saw future events not only together; but in expanding
their description of these events, they seem occasionally to reverse the
same sequence in their record of the vision.4
The foreboding Syro-Ephraimic attack threatened to annihilate the
whole Davidic dynasty. God will not allow this to happen because He is
faithful to keep His promise to David, viz., through him will come the
Messiah, and Jehovah will establish his kingdom for ever (2 Sam 7:13,
16). The privilege of knowing how the Messianic King will proceed from
the line of David (2 Sam 7:12) was given to Isaiah and the faithful
remnant of Davids household, Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear
a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (Isa 7:14). God assured His
people that the northern invasion would not happen. The prophet, in his
vision-experience, used the infancy of the Messiah symbolically as a
measure of time to predict the imminent destruction of Rezin and Pekah.
In opposition to the Study Bibles which attack the traditional view
that Isaiah 7:14 is a strictly Messianic prophecy, we want to promote the
few Study Bibles which remain faithful to the precious doctrine of the
Virgin Birth by upholding the fact that it was only Jesus who fulfilled the
Immanuel prophecy.
The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, edited by Spiros Zodhiates,
7:14 The famous prophecy of Christs virgin birth is contained in this verse
. . ..
Few passages have provoked such controversy as this verse. . . . Recent
studies have a uniform tendency to downplay the miraculous aspects, and
rationalize that this verse is a prophecy that some young woman would
shortly bear a child in the normal way. . . . It is believed that these
approaches do not do justice to the text, . . ..
The child born . . . cannot be just any child for . . . the son to be born . . .
is clearly a divine Person. No child of normal parentage could be so
understood; certainly not the child of Isaiah or Ahaz, as some commentators
have suggested.5
The King James Study Bible,

7:14 Therefore is a transitional word used to connect verse 14 to the
preceding statements. The Lord here is Adonai. Behold is used to call
attention to the unusual birth that is about to be announced. (See also Gen.
16:11 and Judg. 13:5). A virgin is better read, the virgin. The Hebrew
definite article ha indicates that a specific woman is in view. The word
227

virgin used here is the unique Hebrew term almah. A comparison of the six
other instances where it occurs (Gen. 24:43; Ex. 2:8; Ps. 68:25; Prov.
30:19; Song 1:3; 6:8) shows that it is the most precise term the prophecy
could have chosen to indicate that the young woman in view was indeed a
virgin. The more common word betulah is used twice to refer to a married
woman (Deut. 22:19 and Joel 1:8). Thus the Septuagint translation of
almah as parthenos (virgin) is correct, as is Matthew 1:23. Shall conceive
is a feminine adjective connected with an active participle (bearing) and
should be translated is pregnant. Thus the scene is present to the
prophets view, and he sees the pregnant virgin about to bear a Son. That
this prophecy must refer to the virgin birth of Christ is obvious since the
virgin is pregnant and is still a virgin! Immanuel is a symbolic name,
meaning God with Us. He is the incarnate Son of God who is further
pictured as the Child-Prince in 9:6, 7.6
The Defenders Study Bible by Henry M Morris,

7:11 a sign. The Lord was willing to give King Ahaz a sign involving any
great miracle, but Ahaz was unwilling even to consider Gods Word.
7:14 Lord himself. Since Ahaz refused the proferred sign, God would in
due time give the whole house of David (Isaiah 7:13) a sign, a miracle
unique in all of history.
7:14 a virgin. This should read the virgin, indicating a very specific
virgin, long awaited by the entire human race. This could be nothing less
than the primeval promise of the coming Seed of the Woman (Genesis
3:15), who would someday defeat Satan and redeem not only the House of
David but all mankind.
7:14 virgin. Many critics have argued that the Hebrew word means simply
young, unmarried woman, rather than virgin, and some translations
have translated it such. This is nothing but a device to avoids the miracle of
Christs virgin birth. The word is used six or more times in the Old
Testament and in all instances the context favors (or at least does not
preclude) its rendering as virgin. Conception by a young unmarried
woman would hardly be a sign of anything except sin, for such events
occur frequently. A virgin conception would require a mighty act of creation
by God Himself. The quotation of this verse in the New Testament
(Matthew 1:23) should remove any lingering doubt, for the Greek word
parthenos used there can only mean virgin (Jeremiah 31:22).
7:14 Immanuel. Immanuel means God with usthat is, God incarnate
in human flesh, the unique miracle implied by the Edenic promise of the
conquering Seed of the Woman in Genesis 3:15. . . . A true virgin
conception has only occurred once in human history, leading to the birth of
Christ.
228
The Kaiserian approach to Biblical interpretation which leads to a

double-fulfilment view of Isaiah 7:14 ought to be rejected because it
limits the meaning of the text to the human intent; the divine intent is
dismissed. The Holy Bible is thus being treated like an ordinary book.
Again, it must be stressed that in Biblical interpretation, it is not the mind
of the human author that needs to be sought, but the divine. The divine
intent is located in subsequent Scripture.
What is the divine intent of Isaiah 7:14? Gromacki has well
answered,
the divine intent of Isaiah 7:14 involved true virginity. . . . The clear
interpretation of Matthew 1:2223 should explain whatever ambiguity one
might find in Isaiah 7:14. This is the proper order of Christian exegesis.7
Isaiah 7:14 is, indeed, a very special Messianic prophecy. As such,

only a strictly Messianic view of Isaiah 7:14 does justice to the language
of the prophet. There is absolutely no necessity to spurn the traditional
view that Isaiah 7:14 is exclusively predictive of the Virgin Birth of
Christ.
In the light of Matthew 1:2223, Isaiah 7:14 must be seen as strictly
Messianic. The prophecy was fulfilled only in Christ. There is only one
meaning to the text, and it calls for only one fulfillment. Buswell wrote,
It should be clear that we may accept Matthews record of the supernatural
revelation of the angel, which included a specific interpretation of the
prophecy of Isaiah 7:14, without the slightest embarrassment either on
linguistic or historical or literary contextual grounds. A frank examination
of what Isaiah prophesied in its context shows that he gave a prediction of
precisely such an event as took place in the virgin birth of Christ. 8
The sign of Isaiah 7:14 is therefore the sign of the Virgin Birth.
Notes
Timothy Tow, The Gospel Prophets (Singapore: Christian Life Publishers,
n.d.), 11.
2
J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy (New York: Harper
and Row, 1973), 292.
3
Tow, Prophets, 45. See also Machen, Virgin, 291; Young, Isaiah, 2934;
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, s.v. Isaiah, by R. Laird Harris.
4
Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Chicago: Moody Press,
1959), 138.
5
Spiros Zodhiates, ed., The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible (Chattanooga:
AMG Publishers, 1991), 8612.
1
229

The King James Study Bible (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers,
1988), 10289.
7
Robert Glenn Gromacki, The Virgin Birth: Doctrine of Deity (New York:
Thomas Nelson Inc., 1974), 141.
8
James O. Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, two
vols. in one (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 2:44.
6
230
MOSES
MANASSEH
1890 Darby Bible
Die Bibel (Martin Luther 1545, 1912)
1901 American Standard Version
Youngs Literal Translation
New International Version
Jewish Publication Society of the OT
New Revised Standard Version
King James Version
The New Living Translation
New American Standard Bible
The New Century Version
The New King James Version
LXX Family A (Codex Alexandrinus)
LXX Family B (Codex Vaticanus)
Manuscripts
Now, which reading is correct, Moses or Manasseh? Let us
examine the manuscript evidence for Judges 18:30. The critical apparatus
of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS) states:
(1) The codex Leningradensis multi-manuscripts have nun elevated.
(2) Many manuscripts/editions of the Hebrew Texts according to
Kennicott, de Rossi and Ginsburg, do not raise the nun.
(3) To be read with a few manuscriptsGreek Septuagint and Latin
VulgateMSHcompare with the Syriac version from the
Hexaplar Greek Text A.
Facts
In light of this, here are the facts:
(1) There is not a single Hebrew manuscript which reads Moses. Only
three versions, the Greek Septuagint (i.e. Greek translation of the
Hebrew OT, or the LXX), Latin Vulgate and Syriac version have it
as Moses. The critical Hebrew textBHSitself has
Manasseh.
(2) At least one of the Septuagint manuscripts (LXX Family B) has
Manasseh, revealing that not all manuscripts of the Septuagint
agree.
(3) All the Hebrew manuscripts have Manasseh, some with the nun
suspended and the rest have them on the same line.
232
Moses or Manasseh in Judges 18:30?
descendant of Phinehas (Ezra 8:2). And who was Manasseh? There

were at least four Manassehs in the Old Testament: (1) the elder son of
Joseph (Gen 41:51); (2) the son of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 20:21; 21:1-20) and
(3) two men who put away foreign wives (Ezra 10:30, 33). It looks like
Manasseh and Gershom were common names in Old Testament days.
Historically and textually, there is no necessity to link Gershom to Moses
in Judges 18:30. There are also no compelling reasons to identify the
Manasseh and Gershom of Judges 18:30 with any of the abovementioned Gershoms and Manassehs. It is best to let the text be.
Furthermore, in 1 Chronicles 26:24, we are told that the grandson of
Moses was Shebuel (meaning O God, return) not Jonathan.
Shebuel was ruler of the treasures whereas Jonathan was despotic
priest of the disobedient tribe of Dan. Those who insist on Moses say
that Jonathan was Shebuel because he later repented and returned to God.
It goes without saying that this is purely speculative.
It ought to be noted that Dan was the only tribe that broke off from
the land covenant which God made with all Israel (cf. Lev 25:23-34;
Num 36:7-9). The Danites were not to sell or move from their designated
lot as given to them by God through the hand of Joshua soon after the
conquest. But they despised Gods choice and sought a land after their
own desire. Jonathan, as a Levite and teacher of the law, failed in his duty
to rebuke them for their their evil deed. Out of pure greed and selfinterest, he supported the Danites in their disobedience. Perhaps his sin
was so grave in the sight of God that it was highlighted by the use of a
raised nun. The nun was used on his grandfather probably because he was
the one to be blamed for moving his family out of the Levitical city into
Bethlehem-Judah which was not a Levitical city. Bethlehem-Judah was
located in the tribe of Judah (cf. Josh 21:9-16 for a list of Judahs
Levitical cities). Jonathan came from Bethlehem-Judah which was not
Gods allotted city for the Levites (cf. Judg 17:7, 9). Manasseh broke
Gods land-covenant by leaving the Levitical city. His grandson
followed his bad example and joined the tribe of Dan which committed
the same sin.
Conclusion
There is no convincing biblical nor textual basis for the conjectural
emendation of the traditional and preserved Hebrew text in Judges 18:30
which reads Manasseh as accurately translated in the KJV, and not
235
Moses as found in the NIV and some of the modern versions. It is thus
pure speculation to call the elevated nun of Judges 18:30 a scribal error.
236
33
THE NUMBERS IN EZRA 2 AND NEHEMIAH 7
A Solution in Favour of the Inerrancy of the Verbally
and Plenarily Preserved Text
Nelson Were
In Nehemiah 7 we are given a list of returnees that Nehemiah found.
It is almost identical to the list in Ezra 2. The repetition of this list
confirms Gods faithfulness in preserving His chosen people and His
loyal love in bringing them back into the land that He had promised their
ancestors. Nehemiah (445/4 BC) is the second witness to Gods covenant
faithfulness and love to Israel, Ezra (537/6 BC) being the first.
The total number who returned was 42,360 (Neh 7:66, Ezr 2:64).
However the sum total of the individuals mentioned in Nehemiah 7 is
31,089 whereas in Ezra 2, it is 29,818. This has led some to question the
inerrancy of the Bible. Opponents of the Bible have found in these two
chapters a sceptical goldmine and many Christian apologists in
addressing this chapter have opted to attribute these distinctions to
scribal errors. Those who have used these lists to attack the Verbal
Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the
Holy Scriptures have pointed to the (1) disagreement in the numbers of
people given in the lists of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, and (2) disagreement
in the total number from the lists with the total number as given in Ezra
2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66.
It is obvious from the table (next page) that there are many
statistical differences between Ezra and Nehemiah. These are not
contradictions. Before we address and explain the differences, we must
first remember that every word of God is important. Hence, these long
lists of names are as equally the inspired Word of God as the other more
familiar Scriptures, such as John 3:16 and as such they contain no errors
whatsoever, and are to be accepted as inerrant just as John 3:16 is
inerrant.
237
List of the 17 Verses that Do Not Match Between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7
Ezra 2
5
the children of Arah, 775
the children of Pahath-moab ...

2,812
6
Nehemiah 7
10
the children of Arah, 652
the children of Pahath-moab ...

2,818
11
Diff
123
6
the children of Zattu, 945
13
the children of Zattu, 845
100
10
the children of Bani, 642
15
the children of Binnui, 648
11
the children of Bebai, 623
16
the children of Bebai, 628
12
the children of Azgad, 1,222
17
the children of Azgad, 2,322
1,100
13
the children of Adonikam, 666
18
the children of Adonikam, 667
14
the children of Bigvai, 2,056
19
the children of Bigvai, 2,067
11
15
the children of Adin, 454
20
the children of Adin, 655
201
17
the children of Bezai, 323
23
the children of Bezai, 324
28
the men of Bethel and Ai, 223
32
the men of Bethel and Ai, 123
100
the children of Lod, Hadid, and

Ono, 725
33
35
the children of Senaah, 3,630.
the children of Lod, Hadid, and

Ono, 721
37
38
the children of Senaah, 3,930.
4
300
41
The singers: the children of

Asaph, 128
The singers: the children of

Asaph, 148
20
42
The sons of the gatekeepers: ...

139
45
The gatekeepers: ... 138
and 60 list several names with

one total of 652
and 62 names with one total of

642
10
245 male and female singers
45
59
65
200 singing men and women
44
61
67
When reading through Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7, sceptics point out

first, the discrepancies in the number of people in the various clans listed
both in Ezra and Nehemiah; second, the discrepancy between the
238
The Numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7
numbers that would be arrived at by adding up the individual numbers

and the total given at the end of the list. But strangely they do not point
out or comment on the words used.
In addressing this, firstly we need to take into consideration that
both Ezra and Nehemiah are referring to the same event here, namely, the
return of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity (Neh 7:6-7
cf Ezr 2:1-2). In addition to this, it ought to be noted that there is a
difference in time between Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. Therefore, the dates
of writing are different and the statistical differences can be accounted
for by the death of people and the growth of families during the
intervening years. Thus, it is possible that the lists in Ezra and Nehemiah
reflect the different counts at different times of the Jewish return to
Palestine. Higher totals might reflect clans who added people along their
journey, and lower totals might reflect deaths or certain types of attrition
on the journey and thus reasonably explain the differences.
Many Christian scholars attribute the differences in numbers to
scribal errors. In explaining why both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66
agree that the total for the whole congregation was 42,360, and yet
disagree after the totals are added up, Ezra having 29,818 and Nehemiah
31,089, one Christian apologist says:
The original texts must have had the correct totals, but somewhere along the
line of transmission, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed
the total in the other so that they would match, without first totaling up the
numbers for the families in each list. There is the suggestion that a later
scribe upon copying out these lists purposely put down the totals for the
whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at his time, which because it was
later would have been larger.
This is not an acceptable explanation in light of Gods verbal and

plenary preservation of His inspired words (Matt 5:18). The Bible also
teaches that God does not lie or bear false witness (Num 23:19). So how
do we explain these very real differences without denying the inspiration,
preservation, and inerrancy of Scripture? Study the text itself!
First of all, the introduction to the two lists specifies the contents.
The lists specifically mention that they contain the number of the men of
the people of Israel (Ezr 2:2 cf Neh 7:7). When recording the total, both
texts also state that the total number given in the texts is the number of
the whole congregation together (Ezr 2:64 cf Neh 7:66). It is clear from
the text that first of all, those who were recorded in both lists were only
239
the men the Hebrew word used here in both lists is ish which means
a man, a male, or a husband (Exod 35:29, Gen 3:6). The word
connotes maleness, as opposed to femaleness.1
The word for congregation is also the same in both lists and is taken
from the Hebrew word qahal which means a convocation, a
congregation, an assembly, a crowd, a multitude, an army (Ezek 17:17;
23:46, 47), the Hebrew community, an assembly of nations.2 From this,
the question of the numbers not adding up to the total given at the end of
each list may be reconciled by taking the number to be that of the men,
without including the women and children, though the total was given to
mean the whole congregation.
The question that needs to be asked in our attempt to settle this issue
of the sum total is this: Are there other biblical accounts which employ
this method of numbering? And the answer is yes. See for instance
Exodus 12:37 where only the men were counted who journeyed from
Rameses to Succoth (Exod 12:37), and Matthew 14:21; Mark 6:44; Luke
9:14 where only the men were numbered who ate the bread and fish
miraculously multiplied by Jesus. In all three Synoptic Gospels, the word
for men is aner which distinguishes man from woman like the
Hebrew ish which may also be rendered as husband.
Secondly, having reconciled the apparent discrepancies with regard
to the total amount, there still seems to be other discrepancies for as
one reads through the lists, the breakdown of numbers in the lists also do
not tally. How can this be reconciled? Is it possible that these lists though
referring to the same event were compiled at different times? Returning
to the texts, as one carefully studies them, one would notice that it is not
only the numbers that are not the same, but certain names are also
differenthaving alternate forms. There are instances where the numbers
agree but the names are different; for example Ezra 2:18 and Nehemiah
7:24 which have 112 for the number of the children of Jorah/Hariph; Ezra
2:44 and Nehemiah 7:47 which have among the Nethinims the children of
Siaha/Sia.
Another observable distinction concerns the same information but
given in different forms. For example, Ezra 2:24 and Nehemiah 7:28
where the same group of people are referred to as children (ben ie son,
boy, young one) and men (ish) (compare also Ezr 2:20-21 with Neh
7:25-26). Thus, considering the differences, we can say that there were
240
The Numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7
two lists, and taking into account the time that had elapsed since the
period of Ezra 2 and the time when Nehemiah found the register in
Nehemiah 7, and the additional fact that the children were referred to
as men, it seems that there could be another census taken after the
people arrived so as to update the register. This could very well be the
case for in Nehemiah 7:5, Nehemiah testified how God had put a burden
on him to conduct a census and the first step he took was to look for the
former register which he found and he noted the details of it in the
remaining part of that chapter. This would mean that both the lists in Ezra
2 and Nehemiah 7 were accurate records with no errors whatsoever; the
list found in Nehemiah being a list that was written after the one in Ezra
2, taking into account the changes that would have taken place within the
time that had elapsed between the two writings.
Notes
1
2
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: Old Testament, sv ish, 2300.

Ibid, sv, qahal, 2360.
241
35
ARE THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF MARK
REALLY MARKS?
Jeffrey Khoo
The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do
not have Mark 16:9-20 so says the NIV superscript. Its Study Bible goes
on to say, serious doubt exists as to whether these verses belong to the
Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and
display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content
that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, . . .
Here is another NIV attempt at scission. Practically every modern English
version would insert this doubt over the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. It
is only the KJV which accepts it without question.
We affirm the authenticity of the last 12 verses of Mark together
with Dean J W Burgon who wrote a scholarly 350-page defence of those
celebrated verses. Burgon argued that the codices Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus which are said by many to be most reliable are actually
most corrupt. Burgon wrote, Recent Editors of the New Testament
insist that these last Twelve Verses are not genuine. . . . I am as
convinced as I am of my life, that the reverse is the truth. . . . I insist, on
the contrary, that the Evidence relied on is untrustworthy,untrustworthy
in every particular. . . . I am able to prove that this portion of the Gospel
has been declared to be spurious on wholly mistaken grounds.
Furthermore, there is abundant manuscript evidence supporting the
authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. E F Hills wrote, They [Mark 16:9-20] are
found in all the Greek manuscripts except Aleph [i.e. Sinaiticus], and B
[i.e. Vaticanus], . . . And more important, they were quoted as Scripture
by early Church Fathers who lived one hundred and fifty years before B
and Aleph were written, namely, Justin Martyr (c. 150), Tatian (c. 175),
Irenaeus (c. 180), Hyppolytus (c. 200). Thus the earliest extant testimony
is on the side of these last twelve verses.
245
How about the allegation that the last twelve verses are non-Marcan
because of the difference in literary style? Metzger, for instance, argues
against the last twelve verses because there are therein 17 words new to
the Gospel of Mark. Such an argument is often fallacious because it
wrongly assumes that an author has only one uniform style of writing. In
any case, Burgon, after a careful comparison of Marks first twelve verses
with his last twelve verses, concluded, It has been proved . . . on the
contrary, the style of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is exceedingly like the style of S.
Mark i. 9-20; and therefore, that it is rendered probable by the Style that
the Author of the beginning of this Gospel was also the Author of the end
of it. . . . these verses must needs be the work of S. Mark.
Recommended Reference: John William Burgon, The Last Twelve
Verses of Mark (Oxford, London: James Parker, 1871, reprinted in 1983
by The Bible For Today); D A Waite, Dean John William Burgons
Vindication of the Last Twelve Verses of Mark (Collingswood, NJ: The
Bible For Today, 1994); and Edward F Hills, The King James Version
Defended (Des Moines, IA: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 159-68.
246
36
THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY
(JOHN 7:53-8:11)
An Inspired Account of Johns Gospel Proving
Jesus Christ as Light of the World
Jeffrey Khoo
The story of the woman taken in adultery in John 7:53-8:11 is called
the pericope de adultera. Modernistic scholars have attempted to remove
this whole passage from the Bible. According to Westcott, This account
of a most characteristic incident in the Lords life is certainly not a part
of Johns narrative. Not only has it been said that the pericope de
adultera was not a part of Johns Gospel, both Westcott and Hort insisted
that the story has no right to a place in the text of the four Gospels.
The Westcott-Hort based NIV has this misleading statement
concerning the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11: [The earliest and most
reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:538:11]. What are these so called earliest and most reliable
manuscripts which do not have the pericope de adultera? They are Codex
Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, both 4th century manuscripts. Those who
reject the pericope de adultera do so on a presuppositional bias that these
2 codices which omit it are superior manuscripts.
Are the above codices really reliable? According to Dean Burgon, a
godly and renowned Bible defender of the last century, the codices
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are among the most corrupt copies in
existence. Burgon wrote, I am able to demonstrate that every one of
them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence
older than itself (for a full discussion, refer to John William Burgons
The Revision Revised [Collingswood NJ: The Bible For Today, 1981
reprint], 548 pp). Although the above two codices may be earliest they
are by no means most reliable.
247
There is abundant evidence in support of the authenticity of the

pericope de adultera. John 7:53-8:11 is found (1) in many Greek uncials
and minuscules mainly of the Majority or Byzantine text-type, (2) in the
ancient versions or translations: Old Latin, Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic,
Armenian, and Ethiopic, and (3) in the writings of the Church Fathers:
Didascalia, Ambrosiaster, Apostolic Constitutions, Ambrose, Jerome, and
Augustine.
Jerome (AD 340-420), the translator of the Latin Bible called the
Vulgate, said this about the pericope de adultera: . . . in the Gospel
according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found
the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.
Jerome considered the pericope genuine, and included it in his Vulgate.
Self-styled textual critics who arrogantly say: This text has no
place in Scripture; I will never preach from it!, should rather heed these
wise words of Calvin: it has always been received by the Latin
Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains
nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we
should refuse to apply it to our advantage.
It must be noted that if John 7:53-8:11 is removed from the Gospel,
it leaves a vacuum between the words out of Galilee ariseth no prophet
(7:52), and Then spake Jesus again unto them (8:12). In 7:40-52, we
find the private dialogue and debate among the Jewish populace, and
between the temple servants and Pharisees over Jesus identity; whether
He was the Moses-like Prophet (Deut 18:15) or not. Jesus was out of the
picture at that time. It is thus quite awkward to introduce Jesus so
abruptly in 8:12 where it is recorded that He spoke to them again. Jesus
in verses 12-16 was teaching what is righteous judgment. The pericope
de adultera provides the link between the two episodes. Jesus taught
them again because He had already begun teaching the people before
he was interrupted by the scribes and Pharisees (8:2-3). Jesus light of
the world discourse clearly fits the context of the pericope de adultera.
The Jewish religious leaders had failed to exercise righteous judgment
because in condemning the adulteress, they failed to judge themselves for
they were equally sinful (8:7-9). Jesus judicial and yet merciful
treatment of the adulteress clearly demonstrates that He alone as the light
of the world is the true and perfect Judge (8:12).
248
The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)
The divinely inspired account of the woman taken in adultery

rightfully belongs to the Gospel of John. Let us not hesitate to use it for
our encouragement and comfort.
Recommended reading: John William Burgon, The Woman Taken
in Adultery: A Defense of the Authenticity of St John 7:53-8:11, in
Unholy Hands on the Bible (Lafayette: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund,
1990), F1-16; and Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended
(Des Moines: The Christian Research Press, 1984), 150-9.
249
37
A PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF THE
ANTIQUITY AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE
JOHANNINE COMMA
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the
Doctrine of the Trinity?
Jeffrey Khoo
1 John 5:7-8 in the King James (Authorized) Version reads, For
there are three that bear record (witness) in heaven, the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that
bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these
three agree in one. The italicized words constitute the Johannine
Comma (Gk: koptein, to cut of). The Comma proves the doctrine of the
Holy Trinity that There are three persons in the Godhead: the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in
substance, equal in power and glory (Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q
6).
Why is this verse seldom used to teach the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity? Other references are often cited, but why not 1 John 5:7f? One
will often reply, How can I when my Bible does not have it? Therein
lies the problem. With 1 John 5:7f missing in so many of the modern
Bible versions such as the New International Version, the Revised
Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible, it is no wonder
that many Christians are ignorant of this verse. And even if they do know
that this verse exists, they hesitate to use it because they have been
deceived into thinking that it is not part of Gods Word. The NIV Study
Bible, for instance, says that 1 John 5:7f is not found in any Greek
manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the 16th century. On
account of this they argue that 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek
manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight
250
Of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine Comma
extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th
century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is
abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at
least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John
5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers
such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now,
out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First
John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions
were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe
that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation. There is also reason to
believe that Jeromes Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the
Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had
in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of
First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote,
Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i.e., 1 John 5:7f] in the
Greek codices. Edward F Hills concluded, It was not trickery that was
responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus
Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church.
This leads us to the so-called promise of Erasmus. Westcott and
Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular
argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, Erasmus promised
that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future
editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the
passage. At length such a copy was found or made to order. This view
against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is
this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology,
Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzgers view on
Erasmus promise has no foundation in Erasmus work. Consequently it is
highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he
considered himself bound by any such promise. Yale University
professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de
Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus own writing that Erasmus
inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called promise but the fact
that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have
been in the Greek text used by Jerome. The Erasmian promise is thus
a myth!
It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from
the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and
251
inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear

Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to
identify this mysterious person who tried to help the church. In any
case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning
interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Spirit, naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf.
John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar
and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. The Word or The Logos of 1 John 5:7f points to the
apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term
the Word to mean Christ in all his writings.
There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the
fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and
theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good
reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the
clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
252
38
THE WORD OF GOD FOR ALL NATIONS
Phil Stringer
Every major language group in the world faces the same
challengemodernist Bible societies trying to corrupt the Word of God
in that language. (For more information write and ask for my article
Should Fundamentalists Trust Modernist Bible Societies?). As a result,
national pastors and missionaries often have to choose between
conflicting translations of the Bible. This is an extremely important issue
for national pastors, missionaries, Bible printing ministries, Bible
colleges, and mission boards and organizations.
The preserved Word of God will be found in translations based upon
the Received Text (also known as the Traditional Text). These could be
based upon the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Textus Receptus.
They could also be translated from major, long established Received Text
translations like Luthers German Bible, the Italian Diodati Bible or the
King James Bible.
We believe that the original Bible has been maintained to this day by
the verbal, plenary, preserved, inerrant, infallible, inspired Traditional
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words that underlie the King James Bible.
When a translation uses exclusively these preserved Words as its basis,
and pays close attention to the verbal and formal translation technique, it
can be said that it represents the Words of God in that language, just as
we can say that the King James Bible represents the Words of God in
English.
Corrupt translations will be made from Alexandrian texts like
Westcott and Hort or Nestle-Aland. Sometimes long-established
Received Text translations will be revised based upon Alexandrian
texts.
Sound translations will be based upon the verbal and formal
translation technique. The proper text alone is insufficient because of the
influx of translations based upon dynamic equivalency based translations
253
which use interpretation rather than translation. These are often called
meaning-based translations.
The following is a current status report on Received Text Bibles
around the world. We understand that this is a starter report and that
much work remains to be done.
We would be happy to receive any additional information about
these translations or about translations that we have missed or languages
we have not addressed. E-mail Phil Stringer at philstringer@att.net.
We have sent communications to many translators, printing
ministries and missionaries concerning the text of Scripture. Fewer than
one half have been answered.
AFRIKAANS
(South Africaa form of Dutch)
Ta Biblia Ta Logia was released in 1933. It is the first Bible in
Afrikaans. It was very clearly Received Text and was often compared to
the King James Bible. It was revised in 1953 but was still clearly based
upon the Received Text. The 1983 revision is based upon the Critical
Text.
The 1933-1953 Afrikaans Bible is still in print and is actively used
by fundamentalists in South Africa. It is published by the Bible Society of
South Africa, which owns the copyright. It is often called the Old
Afrikaans Version.
AKUAPEM TWI
(Ghana)
German missionary Johannes Christaller led the effort to translate
the Bible into the Akuapem Twi language. The translation was printed in
1871. According to modern missionaries it is very similar to the Received
Text but needs work in a few areas. Christaller and other German
missionaries first had to turn Twi into a written language in order to
produce the Bible. Christaller produced a grammar and a dictionary in
Twi. In 1933, a revision was produced which introduced many Critical
Text readings into that Twi Bible. There are two more recent meaningbased Bibles. Independent Baptist missionary Billy D Carter, Jr
(billycarterjr@yahoo.com) is trying to put together a translation team
dedicated to the Received Text. Their purpose is to revise the 1871 Bible.
254
The Word of God for All Nations
AKEI
Rex Cobb writes:
Michele Bass is working with two national pastors, native speakers of Akei
and a lady, Rose, in the village who is very helpful. Rose is somewhat
educated. Michele also works with one of the pastors wife to check the
translation. Im not sure if you could say that Michele is heading up the
translation, but the pastors listen to her. Michele follows the King James,
for the most part, and the pastors use both the KJB and the French
Ostervalt. They may learn a little more on the French because their primary
education was in French, I believe. One pastor speaks English better than
the other one. They are working on the Gospel of John and probably have a
rough translation of most of it by now. There is another young woman about
30 or so named Honorine who is very interested in helping with the
translation. Akei is her first language but she is fluent in Bishlama (the trade
language, a type of Pidgin English/French), French, and English. Hono is a
very spiritual person and she is very interested in helping her people have a
good Bible. She will graduate from a Baptist Bible College in Fiji in
November. The school is run by some native men who were trained at
Heartland BBC in OKC. She loves the KJB. We are in the process of trying
to get her to BBTI for at least the Bible Translation course in the spring. We
are trying for a R-I visas, but they are much harder to get than in the past. I
think the course will help her, but it will also give her more clout with the
pastors on the translation team. They would be more likely to listen to her
opinion if she has some training in translation. I am very optimistic about
the Akei project.
ALBANIAN
The Albanian 1994 Diodati Bible is the Received Text Bible in
Albanian. It is translated from Giovanni Diodatis Italian Bible,
referenced to the original Greek text and compared with the King James
Version. Part of the preface reads, This version of the Bible is not a
paraphrased translation that gives only an understanding of the mind of
God, but is a translation word for word of the text from the breath of
God. This Bible is printed by some of the Bearing Precious Seed
branches.
ALEUT
Russian Orthodox missionary Ioann Veniaminov (Saint Innocent of
Alaska) turned the Aleut language (also known as Fox) into a written
255
language (finished 1079). He translated part of the Russian Synodal Bible

into the Aleut language.
AMHARIC
(Ethiopian)
The Biblia Amharica was translated by Ethiopian pastors and
British missionaries and published in 1886. The source text was the
ancient GEEZ Bible which was translated from ancient Greek and
Hebrew texts. These texts largely conformed to the Received Text type.
This Bible is available from some branches of Bearing Precious Seed
today.
ANGAVE
(Papua, New Guinea)
Baptist missionary Ray Gibello is doing a translation from the King
James Bible into the Angave language. He can be contacted at
rgibello@aol.com.
ANIWA
Missionary John Gibson Paton (1824-1907) was instrumental in
mission work in several South Pacific islands. He translated the New
Testament from the King James Bible into the Aniwa language. It was
released in 1899.
ARABIC
The Van Dyke Arabic Bible (sometimes known as the Smith-Van
Dyke Bible) is based upon the Received Text. The translation of the
Arabic Bible began in 1848 in Beirut, Lebanon, by Dr Eli Smith using the
Hebrew and Greek texts. After Dr Smiths death in 1857, the translation
work was taken up by Dr Cornelius Van Dyke. He completed the work in
1864 and it was first printed in 1865. Smith normally used the Received
Text, but occasionally departed. In 1910, Henry Jessup, (Fifty Years in
Syria), writes about Van Dykes work: As the American Bible Society
required a strict adherence to the Textus Receptus of Hahns Greek
Testament, Dr Van Dyke revised every verse in the New Testament taking
up the work as if new. He was aided by Sheikh Nacif al-Yaziji.
256
BASQUE
(Spain)
Basque is an isolated language used in the northern mountains of
Spain. Linguists say that it is unrelated to any other language. In 1571,
Joannes Leizarrga translated the Received Text into Basque. He was a
converted, former Roman Catholic priest. His translation was republished
by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1824. It was revised in 1830
by Henry Pyt who used the French Ostervald as a source for revision.
This revision is available to be downloaded on the internet. A Roman
Catholic translation was released in 1976. The United Bible Societies has
recently released an ecumenical translation.
BATAK
(Indonesia)
Missionary Ludwig Ingwer Nommensen is called the Apostle to the
Bataks. Dutch missionary Dr Herman Neubronner Van Der Turk turned
Batak into a written language and translated part of the Dutch Bible into
Batak in 1858. Nommensen translated the German Lutheran New
Testament into Batak in 1878. The Old Testament from the German was
released in 1894. This Bible is still in use and is credited with turning the
Bataks away from being a cannibal tribe.
BELORUSIAN
Francysk Skaryna (1485-1552) translated the Bible into Belorusian.
This is often listed with the great translations of the Reformation but
Skaryna was a Roman Catholic. The base text was the Latin Vulgate. A
facsimile translation was released in 1990. Vasil Syomuba began a
translation into Belorusian in 1988. It was sponsored by the Orthodox
Church. He used the Lutheran Bible and the Russian Synodal Bible as
source texts. The Bible Society of Belorusian is doing a new translation
based upon the New Latin Vulgate translation. It is an ecumenical
translation.
BRAILLE
(The Written Language for the Blind)
J Robert Atkinson (1887-1964) was a Montana cowboy. As a young
man he was blinded in a gunshot accident. He devoted his life to
translating books into Braille. He founded the Braille Institute of
257
America. He translated the King James Bible into Braille. It was released
in 1924. Keith Reedy of Bibles for the Blind makes King James Bibles
available in Braille. He can be contacted at Bibles for the Blind, 3228 E
Rosehill Avenue, Terre Haute, IN 47605, (812) 466-4899. King James
Braille Bibles can also be obtained from Braille Bibles International,
1908 Plumbers Way, Suite 100, Liberty, MO 64068, (1-800) 522-4253.
BULGARIAN
This Bulgarian Constantinople Bible was produced by Protestant
translators and released in 1821. A more authoritative Bulgarian Bible
was produced by American missionaries Elias Riggs and Albert Long and
Bulgarian pastors Christodul Kostovich and Petko Slaveikov. Riggs spent
sixty years in Bulgaria. This Bible was released in 1864. It is often called
the Old Bulgarian Bible. It was revised in 1871. The Bible was produced
under the auspices of the American Bible Society. At that time the
American Bible Society required strict adherence to the Received Text.
This is available from the Russian Bible Society. In 1989 a translation
from the King James Bible into Bulgarian was released. The Slavic
Gospel Association is working on a new translation of the Bible in
Bulgarian. It is scheduled for release in 2009. There are reports that the
New Testament is based upon the Nestle-Aland. Missionary Jeff Krontz
is working on a revision of the old Bulgarian Bible, Jeff Krontz
krontz@mwbm.org. His doctrinal statement and statement about the
Textus Receptus are encouraging. Missionary Krontz writes:
Dear Dr Stringer, Here is the info that I have on the Bulgarian Bible and
what we are doing on the translation that we are working on.
I went to Bulgaria in 2001. Before going I was informed that Bulgaria had a
good Bible translation. After several months of being in the country I was
confronted by a preacher in the church I was attending. He had asked for a
good verse on the Trinity to give someone that he was dealing with. I told
him to turn to 1 John 5:7. When he looked for the verse it was not there. I
was then confronted by the missionary that said if I wanted to start trouble
to get on a plane and return home. I was not needed in Bulgaria.
I began to search and look for information on a Textus Receptus translation.
After several months of praying, looking and asking, I was introduced to a
man that was working on several different translation projects. There was a
translation done in 1871. I have a copy of this translation. It is from the
Textus Receptus. The White Brotherhood, a cult in Bulgaria for many
years, produced it. If you search in bookstores or on the streets where books
258

are sold you can find an original 1871. I have searched through it and have
found many verses that are there including 1 John 5:7. I am not sure if this
one is the same as the 1864 that you have spoken of. It may very well be the
same, just printed by two different printing houses and therefore dated
differently.
I know of no other Bulgarian Bible that is from the Textus Receptus. There
are several groups that have said that they produced a Textus Receptus
Bulgarian Bible, but they are not doing it to a high standard. The reason
that I say this is for example: Born Again is changed to Born from on
High or Born from Above. They take out verses such as 1 John 5:7.
They may be using the right text, but they are so critically changing things
that the end result is junk. There are many different Bulgarian Bibles but
none that I know that are from the Textus Receptus. Only this one that is
dated 1871 (1864?).
I worked on this project with Gospel Publishers in Sofia, Bulgaria. I was
put in touch with them through a lawyer friend. I discussed what I wanted to
do in REVISING the old 1871 to be used and published today. They were
very interested in the project (maybe because of the money). We took this
translation and made all the alphabet changes. I fought them through this
whole project to get it done. We finally finished this project in 2005. It was
published, but there was still more that needed to be done. The reason for
the alphabet changes was because in the 1940s the Bulgarian alphabet was
changed to two different letters. So the change in the alphabet has been
done. This was printed and I have copies of it.
Then another issue came up. The grammar was not correct with modern
Bulgarian. So this had to be done. Also words that were used in the
translation are no longer found in dictionaries. We began to work on the
grammar and the words. I said that only words that have a 100% match
could be changed. The rest would be left alone and a dictionary put in the
back of the Bible. The grammar changes would be made without changing
the integrity of the Scriptures. Well this was when the trouble began. Gospel
Publishers wanted to argue on what each verse meant that was being
worked on. For two years we would meet once a month and get nowhere at
all. After much ado we finally got John and Romans finished. I asked two
other missionaries to meet with me to go through each verse and pick out
problems comparing to the King James. We found 18 problems that we
wanted changed. I took them back and told them I wanted to change these
18 things. I thought that was very well with only 18 problems. They thought
I was being ridiculous. So they made the changes (I thought). A few months
later I needed the text to send to Bearing Precious Seed to print 295,000
copies for us so we could have a campaign. I got the files from them and
259

sent them to Bearing Precious Seed. We campaigned in September, 2007. I
and another missionary were looking through the John and Romans and
none of the 18 changes were done. I was sick. I called Gospel Publishers
back and told them that I was tired of all the arguing and would not be using
their services any longer. I told them that I would pray until I found
someone that had a burden for a good translation of the Bulgarian Bible.
Until I found someone I would do no more work on the project.
Since then I was given another Bulgarian Bible that was supposed to be
from the Textus Receptus, but searching through it, much was changed and
verses left out. If they used the Old Bulgarian Bible or the 1871 those
verses are there and correct.
As of now, I am still waiting to continue with the project. The changes that
have to be made are not difficult changes, but I also dont want to work on
it alone or with people that do not understand the importance of the issue. I
will be returning to Bulgaria in March, 2009. I am praying I will be able to
continue with this project when I return.
I know that a Bulgarian man from the United States was working on a
project, but when I met with him in Sofia a few years ago he said that he
was leaving the 1871 because he had been told it was not from the Textus
Receptus. I told him the verses are there to verify that it is, but he was
talking about using something completely off. If you goggle Bulgarian
Bible you usually can come to his website. I cant remember his name.
Sorry.
So this is my story. I do want to continue with the project or find someone
that has correctly drawn from the 1871.
CAMBODIA
We have received this information from Ray Shull, missionary to
Cambodia. This information has been confirmed by other missionaries.
In Cambodia we have two translations that are currently being used. The
first one was started in 1923 by a Christian Missionary Alliance missionary
by the name of Arthur L. Hammond. After 21 years of translation work, the
first Cambodian Bible was printed in 1954. This is the current translation
that missionaries who adhere to the King James Version would use.
It does have translation problems in some portions, but from what I can find
out it was translated from the Textus Receptus, but Mr Hammond also used
the American Standard Version for clarification. Some portions, therefore,
will read like the American Standard Version. But the Hammond Bible does
not leave out any verses at all, and it includes no side notes next to any of
the verses that the new versions leave out. The biggest problem for us here
with this Bible is that it is out of print.
260

The second Bible that we have in Cambodia is called the Modern Language
Bible. It basically reads and was done in a manner like the Good News for
Modern Man Bible. We do not use it at all, and it is very shallow in its
language. This Bible was started in France in January of 1985 with the help
of the French Bible Society. This Bible was headed up by a Father Francois
Ponchaud and three other Cambodians, one of which was a pastor. The New
Testament was finished in October of 1993. Four years later the same
Father Francois and three women along with a Cambodian pastor finished
the Old Testament. It has also been revised recently.
As far as other translation work that is now in progress, there are none that
are using the Textus Receptus as their base.
CEBUANO
Cebuano is one of 169 living languages spoken in the Philippine
Islands and is spoken as a first language by more than 1.5 million people.
The Philippines consist of more than 7,100 islands clustered in the South
Pacific Ocean and is home to more than 76 million people. The Cebuano
Received Text New Testament was translated by a small group of pastors
in the southern part of the Philippines. The translation was based on the
King James Version of the English Bible. Their translation was the
completion of work begun by missionary Colin Christensen. Further
work is headed up by Filipino Pastor Ruben Sulapas. A 1988 ecumenical
translation is based upon dynamic equivalence.
CHEYENNE
(American Indian)
A New Testament in the Cheyenne language was released in 1934. It
was translated by Rodolphe Petter. He used the Westcott and Hort text as
his base (The Bible in America by P Marion Simms).
CHINESE
Robert Morrison was the first Protestant missionary to China. In
1821, he and Robert Milne published the Holy Bible in Chinese. This
was a Received Text Bible. Morrison was considered a Hebrew and
Greek scholar. On the monument at his grave it reads, ... for several
years labored alone on a Chinese version of the Holy Scriptures, whom
he was spared to see complete and widely circulated among those for
whom it was intended. This Bible was reproduced by the Bible Society
of Singapore in 2007.
261
The American Presbyterian Press produced the New Testament in

English and Mandarin in 1865. The Wenli Reference Bible, originally
produced earlier, was reproduced by the Taiwan Bible Society in 2006.
According to Dr Jeffrey Khoo, both are based upon the Traditional Text.
Pastor James Sun, of the Bethany Christian Church in New York is
working to revise the Chinese Union Version. Along with Pastor Joshua
Lee and David Tsai, under the guidance of D A Waite (William Carey
Bible Society board member), they are seeking to bring the Chinese
Union Version into conformance with the Received Text. A first draft has
been completed. Pastor James Sun can be reached at jamesmhh@
yahoo.com.
CHOCTAW
(American Indian)
The New Testament in Choctaw was translated by American Bible
Society missionaries Wright and Byington. It was released in 1848.
Portions of the Old Testament were also released. At that time the
American Bible Society required translations from Traditional Texts.
They also required that a translation conform to the King James Bible.
Global Baptist Mission is producing a bilingual English-Choctaw
Bible. Working with Raymond Johnson of Talihina, Oklahoma, they are
producing a complete Choctaw Old Testament using a team of computer
experts. The New Testament has already been printed. Global Baptist
Mission can be contacted at: PO Box 6088, Asheville, North Carolina,
28816(828) 681-0370. CHOCTAWThe Global Baptist Trumpet
(September 2009) includes this report about their English-Choctaw Bible
printing:
Choctaw TranslationRev John Wright states in his book, Early Bibles in
America, printed in 1894: From 1825 onwards until in 1848 when the
American Bible Society published the entire New Testament, various books
and portions of the Scriptures were translated and printed either in
individual books or booklets, extending to the year of 1886 when the
translation of the book of Psalms was completed. There was such an interest
in the Old Testament portions that as they were completed they were
immediately printed (page 290). Four missionaries associated with the
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (the same mission
organization which sent Adoniram Judson to India/Burma) carried the
gospel first to Choctaw Indians in Mississippi and Alabama, and then with
their removal to Oklahoma, continued their ministry in evangelism, church
262

planting, and translation of the Holy Scriptures. First, Cyrus Kingsbury,
who had previously established the Brainerd Mission to Cherokee Indians
near Chattanooga, Tennessee, established the Eliot Mission among the
Choctaws in Mississippi in 1818 and then supervised the founding of
Spencer and Armstrong Academies and other churches and schools in
Indian Territory. Kingsbury is fondly remembered as the Father of the
Missions in Indian Territory. Then Cyrus Byington joined the ministry
around 1820 and invested 48 years of his life laboring for the Choctaw
Indians, being the first missionary to learn the Choctaw language
sufficiently to preach in it. Rev Byington was a lawyer converted to Christ
during the revival of 1813 and called to preach. He studied theology at
Andover Theological Seminary, and a wise professor there introduced him
to missions. The Lord used another missionary from Georgia who
introduced him to Indian missions. Rev Byington said, My heart caught
fire and I said, Here am I, send me. After the Trail of Tears from
Mississippi and Alabama in the early 1830s Byington and his family
arrived in Oklahoma in 1835, settling where Eagletown is now located. A
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma history reports: From the new site he
supervised the seminary, continued his work on the language, founded
several churches and served them on his one hundred mile circuit. He also
was frequently called upon to treat his Choctaw parishioners medically,
there being no physician in the area. During the early part of his mission
tenure, he also farmed to help support his family and raise feed for his
stock. Byington and his family were frequently ill with fevers and
respiratory ailments, which afflicted the Choctaws. Both Byington and his
wife were critically ill on several occasions. Their eleven year old son died
after a short illness in 1840. Their youngest son, only two and a half years
old, died of a throat ailment in 1846. Byingtons sister joined his mission in
1839 and only lived a few weeks after arrival. Byingtons family in the
North tried to persuade him to give up the mission and join them there. He
was a trained lawyer and could have expected a fairly affluent and
comfortable life had he been willing to join them. Instead, he stayed,
responding to their entreaties by saying, I came for life.
Rev John Wright said Rev Byington possessed a great aptitude for
languages and that he was pre-eminently a man of scholarly attainments.
Byington was key in translating the Scriptures from the early 1820s with
the publication of the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and John 3 in
1825, until his completion of the Pentateuch, published in 1867 a year
before his death.
Rev Alfred Wright graduated from Andover Seminary and then was
ordained in Charleston, South Carolina, in 1819. Shortly, thereafter he
received his assignment to establish a Presbyterian mission with the
263

Choctaws in Mississippi. There he met and married Harriett Bunce, who
shared his desire for mission work and education of the Choctaws. Wright
labored in Mississippi until the removal of the Choctaw west to Oklahoma,
moving to the new Choctaw country in 1832. He established the Wheelock
Mission school for the education of Choctaw children, and in 1844-46 built
the Wheelock Church, which remains the oldest church building still in use
in Oklahoma today. A letter from Mrs Byington summarizing the ministry
indicates that Mr Wright had feeble health and was not able to ride among
the people as much as Mr Byington, so he devoted more time translating the
Bible with the help of a very able interpreter. Wright was responsible for
much of the New Testament and the Old Testament books of Joshua,
Judges, and Ruth. Upon his graduation from Princeton Seminary in 1851,
Rev John Edwards received an appointment as evangelist in the Indian
Territory under the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions and became superintendent of Wheelock Academy in 1853. He
fled to California in 1861 to avoid taking up arms with the Southern
confederacy. He was recalled to the Indian Territory in 1883 and remained
there until 1896. Edwards had a good understanding of Hebrew and Greek,
translating II Kings and completing the book of Psalms. Three outstanding
Choctaw men labored as interpreters and translators alongside the various
missionaries. In the early 1800s Colonel David Folsom, the first elected
Choctaw Chief, and his family, particularly his brother Israel and his
nephew McKee, assisted Cyrus Byington and Alfred Wright. Joseph Dukes
also served as an interpreter and translator for the early missionaries,
associated with Cyrus Byington at the Mayhew Mission in Mississippi. He
moved with his family to Indian Territory when the Choctaw were removed
and became a Presbyterian minister. He continued to labor with both Cyrus
Byington and Alfred Wright for twenty-five years in translating most of the
nine Epistles, the book of Revelation, the first books of the Old Testament,
and Psalms.
CROATIAN
Early editions of the Croatian Bible appear to have been translated
from the Latin. The first complete Bible was not published until 1838.
The primary translator was Matija Petar Katancic. Ivan Vrtaric has
published a Traditional Text based New Testament in Croatia. It was
printed by the Bearing Precious Seed ministry in Oshkosh, Wisconsin and
endorsed by Couriers for Christ. William Carey Bible Society board
member, Rex Cobb says that, Ivan is a well-educated man in several
languages, including Greek .... He is working on a translation of the Old
Testament based upon the King James Bible. Missionary Johnny Leslie
264
(Trinity Baptist Church, Arlington, Texas) and national pastor Rajko

Telebar are also working on a Croatian Bible Project. Johnny Leslie
writes:
Our philosophy is simple. We believe that we are not Greek nor Hebrew
Scholars. We believe that the translators of the King James Version were
and that they got it right. We believe that the King James Version is Gods
Word and that it not only contains the Word of God, but that it is the Word
of God. That every Word is preserved of God. The King James Version is
the basis of our translation. It is, and will be, the final authority! The men
are using Greek helps and Hebrew helps. We are using other Croatian
Bibles as helps, but not authorities. Our goal is that when this Bible is
finished people will criticize us and say that it is only the King James
Version in the Croatian language. The men are trying their best to use the
King James Version terminology.
John Leslie can be reached at: johnnyleslie@croatia4Christ.com.

John Leslie reported that the New Testament has been printed.
CZECH
The Czech Bible, Kralicka Bibe 1613, is the standard Received Text
Bible in the Czech Republic. It is one of the great Protestant translations
of the Reformation era. It was translated by the Bohemian Brethren. It is
available from many sources, including free downloads from the internet.
A new translation is based upon the New American Standard Bible.
DAKOTA
(Sioux Indian)
Dr Thomas S Williamson began translating the Bible in the Dakota
language in 1837. At that time the policy of the American Bible Society
(which sponsored him) was to translate from the Received Text. The
translation was his primary ministry for over forty years. He was aided by
Dr Stephen Riggs. Dr Riggs also began to minister to the Sioux in 1837.
A final revision was completed by John Williamson (Dr Williamsons
son). The New Testament was published in 1865 by the American Bible
Society. The whole Bible was published in 1879. According to P Marian
Simms (The Bible in America) this is the most important American Indian
translation ever completed. Rev Cook, a Sioux preacher, wrote: May
God abundantly reward in the day of reckoning his two faithful servants,
Dr Williamson and Dr Riggs, who gave us the Holy Scriptures in our own
265
tongue, thus helping to make us what we are and what in the future we
shall be through his grace. Unfortunately, this Sioux Bible is now out of
print.
DANISH
In 1607, a Danish Bible was printed. It was translated by Hans Paul
Resen from the Received Text. A revision of this Bible was released in
1819. It remained the standard Bible of the Danes until the 1930s.
Fundamental missionaries, Touny and Susan Mollerskov write that the
1819 is close to the Received Text but that more work needs to be done.
They are beginning work on a Danish New Testament. The Authorised
Version of the Danish Lutheran Church is a translation released in 1931.
It is clearly Critical Text.
DUTCH
The first Dutch translation from the Received Text was in 1637. It
became known as the States-Bible (Statenvertalling). It was influenced by
the King James Bible. This is often known as the Dutch Authorised
Version. It is credited with standardising the Dutch language. It was
revised in 1657 and this revision remained the standard Dutch Bible until
1951. The 1657 version is still in print and used by some Dutch believers.
There are also aborigine tribes in Taiwan that use this Biblethe
influence of Dutch missionaries in the 1800s. It can be downloaded from
the internet. There are a number of Critical Text Dutch Bibles available.
A new Dutch Bible promises to be more attractive and market oriented.
ENGLISH
The King James Bible was released in 1611. It is the most
successful Bible translation of all time. The King James Bible translators
are the greatest translation committee ever gathered for any translation
work of any kind. The King James Bible has withstood every attack from
its critics for almost 400 years. The King James Bible is widely available.
It has been the base text for translations in many languages. According to
Winston Churchill it has been translated into 760 languages (Churchills
History of the English-Speaking Peoples, one volume edition, p 160).
266
ESTONIA
The first New Testament published in the Estonian language was in
1715. A replica of the 1715 Estonian Bible is now available for the
Estonian people. The first translation was finished by Hohann Hornung
(1660-1715) and Adrian Virginius (1663-1706). Over 60 years translation
work had been done. This translation was from Traditional Text Greek
and Hebrew. The translators were German pastors and Luthers German
Translation was also a source text. The complete Bible was published in
1739. The Old Testament was completed by Anton Thor Helle (16831748). He united two Estonian dialects in his translation. There are
several modern Critical Text based Bibles available in the Estonian
language. The Russian Bible Society is studying the available Estonian
texts to see which is closest to the Received Text.
EWE
(Ghana, Togo)
The first missionaries to the Volta River region of Ghana were from
the Bremen (German) Mission. They produced a translation of the
Lutheran Bible (New Testament in 1877, Old Testament in 1913). They
were aided by a national pastor, Andreas Aku (1863-1931). After the
Germans were expelled from the area during World War I, Aku became
the leader of the Presbyterian Church in the region. In 2003, a Ewe
translation based upon the New International Version was released.
According to the translators, This translation uses an informal language
style and applies a meaning-based translation philosophy.
FALAM-CHIN
(Chin State, Myanmar)
The Falam-Chin translation of the Bible based on the KJV was
initiated by the Rev Joseph Thang Hup, BD, STM (Dallas Theological
Seminary) in 1980. He completed translating the New Testament in 1987.
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Myanmar then took over to
proofread and revise it for accuracy. A new translation committee was
formed in 1989 comprising a good number of elderly and experienced
Christians from different backgrounds and denominations. The work was
done using the verbal equivalence method and was finally completed in
1993.
267
In early 1999, the faculty of the Far Eastern Fundamental School of

Theology in Yangon did a final check on the translation and prepared it
for publication. The Falam-Chin NT (Thukam Thar) was finally
published in October 1999. First printing: 10,000 copies.
FAROE ISLANDS
The Faroe Islands (north of Norway) are an independent country.
There are two Bibles in their language. One was released by Jacob Dahl
in 1961. Both are Critical Text based. Non-denominational preacher,
Sjurder Hojgaard has finished a translation of the King James Bible into
Faroese. He can be reached at sjurdar@krea.fo.
FARSI
(Iran-Persian)
Henry Martyn (1781-1812) translated the Received Text New
Testament into Farsi. He coined the term Theology in Philogy. This
term refers to the challenge of translating theological terms into national
languages. When Martyn died, he was remembered as ... defending the
Christian faith in the heart of Persia against the united talents of the most
learned Mahomedans. Robert Bruce published a revision of Martyn in
1895. This departed seriously from the Received Text. It was further
revised in 1904. This is normally the Farsi Bible used by evangelicals
today, but is seriously flawed. A common language version was produced
in 1976. Some faithful underground believers have produced their own
translation of the Bible in Farsi, the Ketabet Almoqadasat. It is privately
printed. For more information, contact philstringer@att.net. Pooyan
Mehrshahi, an Iranian-born Irish Presbyterian is working with the
Trinitarian Bible Society to produce a Received Text Farsi Bible.
Currently they have published the Gospel of John.
FINNISH
The Fineish Biblia was released in 1776. This Bible is the fourth
edition of the 1642 translation by the Lutherans. It is a Received Text
Bible. It is often called the old Biblia. This was the official Bible of the
Lutheran Church until it was replaced in 1933 by a Critical Text Bible.
An 1852 revision remains in use in Finland by small conservative groups
within the Lutheran Church. Wikipedia compares it to the King James
Bible. The Bible Literature Foundation of Shelbyville, Tennessee is
268
printing a bilingual parallel Bible using the 1776 Finnish Bible and the
King James Bible. It contains 1 John 5:7 and many similar KJB readings.
Teno Hamalainen reports that there is no problem understanding the 1776
Bible today and that it is still used by the Laestadius branch of the
Lutherans. In 1992, the Lutheran church released a meaning-based
translation.
FRENCH
The French have a great history of Received Text Bibles, including
the Olivetan Bible and the Ostervald Bible.
There appear to be two Received Text French Bibles available
today.
The David Martin French Bible was released in 1699. It was based
upon the Received Text and the English Geneva Bible 1588. An 1855
revision is available today. It can be obtained from the Association of the
Biblique International, Box 225646, Dallas, Texas, 75222.
A 1996 revision of the Froussard edition of the Ostervald edition of
1881 is in print today. It can be obtained from Bearing Precious SeedMilford and Bethel Baptist Church of Lambeth, Ontario. The 1996
revision was done by Missionary C H Boughman. Both versions still
need a final purification process.
Many Baptist missionaries use the French Louis Segond translation.
This is far from being a reliable Received Text translation. The
Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a revised Louis Segonda few
verses have been changed to reflect the Received Text. According to a
2006 email from Paul Rowland, the Trinitarian Bible Society is working
on a revision of the David Martin Bible comparing it with the King James
Bible.
The website www.kingjamesfrancaise.com contains a translation of
the King James Bible into French. This translation is not in print yet.
Nadine Stafford sends this note about this translation:
In 1994, I was told by a French pastor that the word enfer (hell) was not
to be found in the French Bibles. I was shocked to hear that! I immediately
consulted the 1910 Segond and a few other French Bibles. What he said
was true. Using New Age Bible Versions, by Gail A Riplinger, I started
checking the many problem passages mentioned in her book and found that
over 90% of those passages were also mistranslated in the French Bibles. It
269

was then that I began work on translating the King James Bible into French
for my own personal use. To my great dismay, even the 1885 Martin and the
1996 Ostervald Bibles, which are being promoted as the French equivalents
of the King James version, were far from it and not even entirely faithful to
the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text as is proclaimed.
In 1999, I met Sister Gail Riplinger at the King James Conference at Mt
Airy. After I showed her how far the 1996 Ostervald had strayed from the
King James Bible, she encouraged me to continue my translation. In 2001 I
was led providentially to a French Christian website, where the webmaster
had just acquired a 1669 Bible de Geneve (Geneva Bible in French). I
introduced him to the 1885 Martin Bible, the 1996 Ostervald Bible, the
King James Bible, and the book, New Age Bible Versions. When I
mentioned to him that I was translating the King James Bible into French,
he asked for permission to post it on his site. I also translated parts of Gail
Riplingers book for him.
I have been researching and collating, verse by verse, the 1669 Bible de
Geneve, the 1744 Martin and 1855 Martin, as well as the 1894 Ostervald,
1852 Ostervald New Testament, 1938 Ostervald New Testament and
Psalms and of course, the 1996 Ostervald, and compared them to the King
James Bible. The many differences lead to confusion, especially in the Old
Testament passages with references to the Millennial Kingdom, where the
present tense of the verbs are used instead of the future tense. It is hard to
teach correct eschatology using these Bibles which present Reformation
theology. Dont forget that Olivetan was John Calvins cousin!
French Canadian missionary, Dr Yvon Geoffrion is basing most of

his ministry working upon a new translation of the Bible into French. He
is a doctrinally sound fundamental Baptist preacher. He is using a French
translation done in the early 1800s as a base. It was translated by 30 men
over 40 years. It was the product of an evangelical revival. It was printed
in Lousanne, Switzerland and is sometimes called the Lousanne Version.
The Dean Burgon Society is involved with a new French Traditional
Text Translation. H D Williams describes the project this way.
The DBS published 60 copies of the initial French edition for Pastors Mario
Monette and Serge Leclerc of Quebec. We uploaded the French Bible for
printing on 7/29/10. After receiving the copies, they distributed them
around the world to competent appropriate French speaking individuals. We
have asked for a report related to the responses, issues, corrections, etc.
from the reviewers, but we have not received it to this date. However, they
have inquired recently about the cost of a finished edition to be printed in
Korea.
270

I might add that the French pastors visited in NJ with Dr Waite prior to the
DBS agreeing to publish the initial edition. At that time a conference call
was set up with Dr Waite, myself, and Daniel Waite. We quizzed the pastors
for about 2-3 hours on their theology, translation principles, proper texts,
etc. We reviewed how they handled many passages that had been translated
inappropriately in the past in various translations, including many CT
readings. Their answers were very satisfactory and it seemed they had
corrected the incorrect passages in the Ostervald French Bible related to CT
readings.
FRENCH CREOLE
French Creole, also known as Haitian Creole, is primarily spoken
throughout Haiti. It is considered to have a lower social status than
standard French and is spoken by 7.4 million in Haiti and another 400
thousand in other countries.
A French Creole translation was done by Baptist missionary Daylon
Hicks in the early 1980s. It was translated from the King James Version
by Hicks and several Haitian pastors and laymen.
This version is available from some Bearing Precious Seed chapters.
FULFULDE
(Fulani, Cameroon)
Missionary Sam Sanderlin writes:
Here is a paragraph regarding West/Central Africa Fulfulde spoken by
several million unreached Fulani Muslims. If you want, you can add it to
your list.
Fulfulde is the language of the Fulani tribe that lives in Cameroon, Chad,
Nigeria, and the Central African Republic. There are several dialects
spoken by these several million Fulani, who concerning the gospel are
virtually an unreached people group. The Lutherans are largely responsible
for the current translation of the Bible called the Deftere Allah. This
translation is based on the critical Greek text, using dynamic equivalency,
and was translated and published by ecumenical groups. Wycliffe Bible
Translators are currently revising this translation and plan to publish it in
Arabic script. Wycliffe Bible Translators also uses the critical text and the
dynamic equivalent method of translation. While there are some groups out
there reaching the Fulfulde speaking Fulani, there are very few missionaries
who are fundamentalist in nature.
271

There is a veteran missionary in Cameroon who along with his family
speaks fluent Fulfulde. He is prayerfully assembling a team to translate the
Bible into Fulfulde from the Masoretic and Received Text using formal
equivalency.
GEORGIAN
A Georgian Bible was translated from the Russian Synodal Bible in
1743. It is available from the Russian Bible Society.
GERMAN
Luthers German translation, Biblia Germanica, was released in
1534. It was done directly from the Masoretic Hebrew text and the
second edition of Erasmus Greek text. He also consulted the Latin text of
Paganinus. The original Lutheran Bible is still available.
It has been said that no other translation of the Bible, apart from the
King James Bible, has had a greater impact upon its people and culture
than the German Bible of Luther.
A Swiss-German version of the Lutheran Bible, the Zurich Bible,
was produced in the late 1530s. It was compared to the Greek and
Hebrew by Leo Judd and a revision was released in 1542.
Judd disagreed with Luther and his close associate Zwingli and
advocated the separation of church and state.
The Zurich Bible is still in print.
Luthers Bible has been revised dozens of times. The revisions
differ dramatically in their faithfulness to Luthers original translation
and to the Received Text. Versions of Luthers Bible are available from
many sources including Independent Baptist Publishers. It is often very
hard to identify which version is being printed. According to Lutheran
sources, the 1868 revision is the last conservative edition.
There was another German Received Text Bible, the Elberfelder,
which was released in 1871. It is not in print today, though it can be
viewed on the internet.
In 1998, La Buona Novella, Swiss publishers published an edition
of the Lutheran New Testament designed to remove Critical Text
influence. It is not recognized by the Lutheran denomination. It should
not be confused with the 1992 Lutheran Bible (which is completely
Critical Text) published by the Lutheran Church.
272
Another German translation, the Schlachter 2000 is known as a

Received Text Bible. The Dunelin Road Archive, July 2007, confirms
this as a Bible for German speakers who honor the Received Text.
Franz Schlachter released his translation in 1905. A major revision
was released in 1951. The 2000 edition is available from BEAMS, PO
Box 10200, Gulfport, Mississippi, 39505, (228-832-1055).
According to missionary Jim Garrison, the Schlactor 2000 is
translated from the Received Text (New Testament) and the Masoretic
Text (Old Testament). It was compared to the Old Lutheran Bible, the
Zurich Bible and the King James Bible. It is printed by the Geneva Bible
Society.
GIO
The Gio are a tribal people in Liberia. The Trinitarian Bible Society
has produced a New Testament in their language.
GSUNGRAB
The Bible is being translated into Indian language by the Gsungrab
Team. They are using the United Bible Societies 4 (Critical Text) and
comparing it to the NRSV, NASB, TEV, and NET.
GREEK
(Modern Greek)
The first modern complete Greek translation was completed in 1630
by Maximus Callipolites under the sponsorship of the reforming patriarch
of Constantinople, Cyril Lucar. The New Testament was translated from
the Received Text. Lucar was greatly opposed to the idea of making the
Bible available to the common man in his language. He was strangled to
death by his opponents.
In the early 1700s there was another attempt to print the Maximus
Bible. The sponsor was exiled to Siberia, where he died in prison.
During the 1800s the Maximus Bible was printed and distributed
several times. In 1823 and 1836, the patriarch of Constantinople ordered
all copies seized and burnt.
In 1850, Neofitos Vamvas issued a compete translation of the Bible
into modern Greek. He was labeled a Protestant and expelled from the
Greek Orthodox Church. His critics claimed that he very closely followed
273
the King James Bible in his translation. The Greek Orthodox Church
burned many copies of this Bible.
In 1901, there were riots over the publication of another translation
into modern Greek.
Since 1850, the Varmas (also known as Bombas) translation has
been published by the Trinitarian Bible Society. The History of the
American Bible Society (p 272) refers to Professor Varmas as an eminent
Greek scholar. His work has been widely praised for consistency with
the Traditional Text and the King James Bible.
However, some fundamental Greek preachers have stated that the
Bombas Bible is high literary and is of increasingly less use with the
average Greek citizen.
A more recent New Testament, the Vella, is said to be translated
from the Traditional Text.
GULLAH
(Southeastern United States)
Gullah is a language originally spoken on Africas west coast. It was
brought to the southeastern United States by slaves. It is still spoken in
the coastal islands off the shores of the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida.
Claude and Pat Sharpe, with many Gullah volunteers translated the
King James Bible into Gullah. The project was sponsored by Wycliffe
Bible Translators. The complete Bible was released in 2005.
The Gullah Bible is available on line. In January 2007,
Congressman James Clyburn took his oath of office with his hand on the
Gullah Bible.
HAUSA
(Nigeria, Niger, Sudan and Cameroon)
Walter Richard Samuel Miller (1872-1952) spent fifty years as a
missionary from England to Nigeria. He has often been called the
apostle to the Hausea.
There was an early missionary translation of the New Testament in
1880. Miller revised this and produced a translation of the Old Testament
into Hausa in 1932. This is referred to as the Miller Hausa Bible.
274
This translation is referred to as Protestant and conservative.

We have not been able to find information on the textual base for this
translation. The Miller Hausa Bible has been widely used by evangelicals
in the tribal areas of Nigeria.
HAWAIIAN
Missionary Hiram Bingham released a Bible in the native Hawaiian
language. He spent fifteen years on this effort. It was sponsored by the
American Bible Society. Their policy at that time was to translate from
the Received Text.
The translation fell out of use, and out of print as the Hawaiian
language fell out of use.
HEBREW
The Society for Distributing Hebrew Scripture makes complete
Hebrew Bibles available. They state that they used the Masoretic Old
Testament and a Hebrew New Testament that was edited to correspond to
the Greek Textus Receptus. The New Testament is known as the
Salkinson-Ginsburg Hebrew New Testament.
They can be contacted at: Joseph House, 1 Bury Mead Road,
Hitchin Herts 5GR 1RT, England, UK or email @5DHS1940@aol.com
or they have Bible depots in several countries. In the United States they
can be contacted through Light for Israel, PO Box 80652, Charleston, SC
29416 or email @info2@light for Israel.org.
Daniel Fried of the Hope of Israel Baptist Mission provides this
report.
The Salkinson-Ginsburg edition is actually corrupt and based on the critical
text. Their English side of their Old Testament is full of problems; e.g. they
have changed the font on the italic words to be the same as the rest of the
fonts; also they were very careless when it came to LORD vs Lord, and
many more examples of which I have not complied.
That is why Hope of Israel Baptist Mission was lead by the Lord to publish
our Hebrew-English New Testament Prophecy edition. It is based on the
only faithful Hebrew translation of the Textus Receptus which is put out by
the Trininatarian Bible Societyby Franz Delitzsch.
The Hebrew Society messed around with that good text and ever since has
been trying to appease those of us who complained that they had departed
from the Textus Receptus. There have been feeble attempts to correct the
275

problemswe could not recommend the corrupt Salkinson-Ginsburg. Even
the Israel Bible Society recognized that Franz Delitzsch to be more faithful
to the Textus Receptus. In my research over 30 years I have discovered that
Franz indeed like many of his contemporaries were being pressured and
influenced by higher criticism; however he was a strict Lutheran unmatched
for his time. My study of his text along with many that have gone before
me, would conclude that his was very faithful to the Textus Receptus in his
translation into Hebrew, even Orthodox Jews concur with his accuracy of
Biblical Hebrew. The contemporary leaning of the Hebrew Society was to
compromise that text by using the critical text in order to make the Hebrew
more like the NIV style, etc. You can get more accurate, substantive
documentation from the Trinitarian Bible Society.
Currently only the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Hope of Israel Baptist
Mission are publishing Hebrew bibles based on the Textus Receptusthat
Im aware of. Whole Hebrew Bibles can be gotten from the Trinitarian
Bible Society.
HERERO
(NambiaBotswana)
Gottlieb Viehe (1839-1901) was a German missionary to the Herero
people. He translated the Bible into their language from the German
Lutheran Bible. His work was released in 1872.
This Bible was replaced in 1987 by a Critical Text Bible.
HILIGAYNON
(Philippines)
There is a Hiligaynon text that was done by Bro Roger Vournas on
the island of Guimaras. His text is a complete Old and New Testament.
Hiligaynon is the dialect of the Visayan Missionary Vournas writes.
An ecumenical translation was released in 2007.
For some additional information about our Hiligaynon (llonggo) Bible
translation. Pastor Winston White, a native Filipino (llonggo) Baptist
pastor, and I translated the entire Hiligaynon Bible from the Authorized
King James Version, 1611. The Hiligaynon language is one of the major
languages of the Philippines and is spoken by millions on Panay Island, half
of Negros Island, Guimaras Island, and parts of Mindanao island. We
translated as close as we could according to formal.
Translation using the grammar of this language; however, there are times,
for example regarding an English idiom, where we needed to make it
276

understandable in the language here and we did so. We printed the New
Testament in 1998 and kept on translating the Old Testament. It took the
span of about seven years to translate the entire Bible. Allowing time to
request and receive donations to print the Bible, we were able to print the
entire Bible in 2006 in Korea. My wife, Bing Bing, also a native llongga,
did general checking of the translation which included checking for
grammar, which she is good at. Our translation has given fruit in the souls
saved and of course for use in Bible studies, which has been a real blessing
because we can trust what we are reading. There are other translations in
Hiligaynon, but they are corrupt, being translated from corrupt Bible
versions such the New International Version, the American Standard
Version, and the New American Standard Bible. There is one other New
Testament Hiligaynon translation which says it was translated from the
King James Version, and they corrected many verses, but there were still
many verses which were not checked or corrected at all. I do not know if
there is a further revision of their translation but when I checked their
second and third printing editions, it still had bad corruptions in it.
Email address: biblekjb1611@yahoo.com.
HMONG
(Vietnam, China, Laos and Thailand)
The only Hmong Bible available was translated from the Todays
English Version.
Pastor Randy King(First Light Baptist Mission) writes with this
update on the Hmong language:
In the Hmong language. A Hmong man who got saved, served in our
ministry, went to Hyles Anderson and then to Empire Baptist Temple (South
Dakota) for seminary is currently working with the Hmong up in
MinneapolisSt Paul. He is real strong Baptist and KJV, and he is working
on translating the Bible into HMONG. He has been doing it for more than
10 years, as time allows. He has tracts he gives out and I think he has
completed the NT. We support him as a missionary. He is married with
about 10 kids now. You may contact him at:
Dr (Pastor) Ko Yang (We call him Ko, but really his name is Naoko
and his Hmong wifes name is May).
First Hmong Independent Baptist Church, 1365 Westminister Street, St.
Paul, MN 55101, USA (Tel: 651-704-0903, 651-271-5130).
277
HUNGARIAN
The Karoli Version, also known as the Vizsoly Bible, was published
in 1590. The translation effort was headed up by Pastor Gaspar Karoli. It
is one of the great Protestant era Bibles. A 1908 revision is the standard
Hungarian Bible today for evangelicals.
According to the Hungarian Bookstore (which also sells Catholic
Bibles): Many Hungarians who read English have compared the
language to that found in the King James Version.
The Karoli Version is available from many sources.
ICELANDIC
The Gudbrands Biblia was published in 1594. It was named after its
editor Gubrandur Thorlaksson. It is one of the Protestant Era Received
Text translations. This translation was financed by the King of Denmark.
This Bible is still published by the Icelandic Bible Society.
IGBO
(Sierra Leone, Nigeria)
Thomas J Dennis served as a missionary to the Igbo people. He
translated the Bible into Igbo. This translation was released in 1913.
Dennis translated from the Greek and Hebrew and used the King
James Bible as a standard of comparison.
Dennis died in a shipwreck in 1917. This translation was in use until
2007, when it was replaced by a Critical Text translation from the Bible
League.
ILLONGO
(Philippines)
A number of Filipino pastors, working with missionary Rick Marten
have produced an Illongo New Testament. It has been checked against the
King James Bible.
Work is beginning on an Old Testament translation.
ILOCANO (ILOCO)
(Northern Four Provinces of the Philippines)
The current translations of Ilocano are Critical Text based.
278
The UBS translation was headed up by Petrocinia Tayaban.

According to a personal letter from him, the textual base for this
translation was English versions including the Revised Standard Version,
Todays English Version and the Moffat Bible. The team of translators,
including Protestant preachers and Catholic priests, were trained in
Dynamic Equivolence.
Independent Baptist missionary Clemente Quitevis is offering a
bilingual Ilocano-English Bible. He is out of Bible Baptist Church of
Vallejo, CA.
Brother Quitevis writes this account of his work:
Heres a very brief history about myself and the P.I.E. (Parallel Ilocano
English) King James Version Bible Project. I was born in the Philippines in
1944 and am a true and pure Ilocano. I came to the United States in 1962,
got saved in the United States in 1973. I was burdened at first about the
salvation of my relatives in the Philippines, therefore we (my wife and three
children) went to the northern Philippines in 1977 where I was born, sent
out as local church missionaries of Calvary Baptist Church of San
Francisco, California. In 1988 we moved to Vallejo, California, and since
then became members of Bible Baptist Church of Vallejo, California where
I am serving as their layman missionary to the Philippines. I have been
teaching and preaching in the Ilocano dialect since 1977, and I speak the
dialect fluently.
While in the Philippines (1977-2000) I used extensively the original
Ilocano Bible published by the Philippine Bible Society in preaching,
teaching, and studying. I have been told that this Ilocano Bible was
translated from the King James Bible. I believe some pastors here in the
Ilocandia region have the same thoughts also. In 2000-2001 while I was in
the United States I read that the United Bible Societies were publishing
those corrupted versions, even in the foreign languages, and I saw also that
the parent company of the Philippine Bible Society is the United Bible
Societies. Further research, found out the Ilocano Bible we were all using
seems to be translated using the Revised Standard Version. I was very much
bothered about these things, especially when I checked that some verses
were missing and many words omitted and added. This became a heavy
burden on my heart to make and present to my Ilocano countrymen a true
Ilocano Bible translated after the pure and preserved Word of God in
English (the King James Version).
In 2002-2003 I started to type in my computer the New Testament Ilocano
using my King James Version Bible. The Parallel Ilocano-English concept
type of work, still at this time did not get into the picture. On July 19, 2005,
279

this New Testament Ilocano (King James Version) was completed and
printed and bound locally in Ilocos Sur, Philippines. It was done also like
the red-letter edition of the King James Bible.
In 2005-2006 another heavy burden put on my heart to produce this time a
Parallel Ilocano-English King James Version New Testament Holy Bible. In
December of 2007, I completed the New Testament portion and some
copies of the New Testament Parallel Ilocano-English King James Version
with red letters that were produced by a local print shop in Vigan, Ilocos
Sur. Then afterwards, another burden was moving in my heart to produce
the complete Old Testament and New Testament Parallel Ilocano English
Bible.
Now in 2009, I completed the electronic copy of the King James Version of
the Old Testament and New Testament Parallel Ilocano-English Holy Bible
with the words of the Lord Jesus in red letters.
Brother Quitevis died in an automobile accident on August 3, 2010.

Dr Steve Zeinner is now working with this text.
Brother Quitevis has produced a second draft of the NT (correcting
several errors) and the first draft of the OT. He has stated his willingness
to correct anything that is not consistent with the King James Bible. He
further makes this statement.
1. I believe that the so called Authorized Version in the English language is
the King James Version (KJV) Bible.
2. I believe that God has given us the infallible Scripture by divine
inspiration in the original Greek and Hebrew writings, and that God by
divine preservation has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic Old
Testament and the Greek Received Text New Testament underlying the KJV
Bible and other Reformation Bibles, and that the KJV Bible is an accurate
translation of the pure Words of God in the English language.
3. I believe that the Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament and Greek Received
Text New Testament when translated properly into any language is the
preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is Chinese, Korean, or a
Philippine dialect.
4. I believe that the KJV Parallel Ilocano English (P.I.E.) Bible is intended
for the use of those whosoever will draw near and love God particularly
to those Philippine Ilocano dialect speaking people, and that permission is
hereby granted to those whosoever will to make copies of it, and that
permission is also granted to those whosoever will to publish it as long as
it is published with my consent and without any modification.
280

5. I believe that anyone is welcome to make comments, suggestions,
improvements, modifications, and that you can contact me with the
information below.
There is also an Ilocano parallel Translation of the Good News

Bible and a translation of the New Good News Bible.
INDONESIAN
Missionary Louis A Turk has spearheaded an effort to translate the
Received Text into Indonesian. Their goal is to print the New Testament
in 2009. He can be contacted at louisaturk@bible-way.org.
We have received information from Louis A Turk that he is in
complete agreement in the purpose, standards, doctrine and translation
principles of the William Carey Bible Society.
Bro Turk is doing translation work based on the Textus Receptus,
the Masoretic Text and the King James Bible. All of the New Testament
is done except for Luke and Revelation.
INUKITUT
(Greenland)
Norwegian Lutheran missionary Hans Poulsen Egede is remembered
as the Apostle to Greenland. He went to Greenland in 1721. He turned
the language of the Inuit people into a written language.
With his son Paul, he translated the Bible into Inukitut. In 1933
Moravian missionaries revised this translation. The work was heavily
influenced by Luthers German translation.
IRISH
(Gaelic, Irish-Gaelic)
William Daniel (Ulliam ODomhnaill) released a New Testament in
Irish in 1602. This was clearly Traditional Text based and designed to
convert Roman Catholics. According to Daniel it had been delayed by
Satan and Romish seducers.
William Bedell produced a Traditional Text Old Testament which
was not immediately released. It was revised under the sponsorship of
Robert Boyle and released in 1685.
The British and Foreign Bible Study began printing the DanielBedell Irish Bible in 1817.
281
In 1858, a Roman Catholic translation was released. In 1981, a new

Catholic version was released.
In 1970, the Revised Standard Version was translated into Irish.
There is a current project devoted to a Traditional Text based
revision of Daniel-Bedell. Information can be obtained at irishbible
@biblebc.com.
ISAN
(Thailand, Makong)
The Bible has never been translated into the Isan language before
a variant of Central Thaispoken by one-third of Thailands total
population (21 million as of 2008). The official Thai Bible is controlled
by the Bible Society. Besides being Alexandrian based (American
Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version),
it is directly mistranslated in numerous important passages. Various new
Thai translations have been done, some better than others, but all are
Alexandrian based (except for one).
Veteran church-planting missionary, Ron Myers, is translating the
King James Bible into Isan and referencing the Received Text as a textual
authority.
Ron Myers has an excellent website explaining the process and
principles involved in this translation. It would be worthy of study by
anyone involved in Bible translationlook up www.IsanBible.com. Ron
can be contacted at ronmy0@gmail.com.
ITALIAN
The Diodati Italian Bible was released in 1603. It is one of the great
Reformation era Bibles translated from the traditional texts. Giovanni
Diodati was a professor associated with Calvin and Beza in Geneva.
There are more recent revisions of the Diodati that are not faithful to
the Received Text.
JAPANESE
Karl Gutzlaff, a German missionary, made an early attempt to
translate the New Testament from the Received Text into Japanese in the
1830s. American missionaries made several attempts to translate parts of
the Received Text into Japanese. The New Testament was translated into
282
the AINU (northern Japan) language in 1897. Several translations

influenced by the Critical Text were done in the 20th century.
A translation from the King James Bible (referenced to the Received
Text) was published in the late 19th century. A revision of this translation
was done in 1917 and the New Testament was referenced to the Critical
Text.
In 1928, a Japanese scholar translated the New Testament from the
Received Text. It was reprinted in the 1990s.
There are several Critical Text based Japanese Bibles available.
Missionary John Hime (Baptist World Mission) is heading an effort
to produce a Received Text based New Testament. They have just
finished a first draft.
John Hime has written a tremendously thorough history of the Bible
in Japanese, By Every Word of God. In it he writes, Translating the
Word of God from a pure heart of faith is a massive job, and not one for
the quitter. Only those who have been gifted by God with ability in
languages and called of God to the task should attempt it, and it should
only be done for the glory of God and to uplift Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, missionary Hime rejects the Verbal Plenary
Translation method and speaks harshly of it. His standard for translations
is unknown. John Hime may be contacted at johnofjapan@hotmail.com.
Missionary Randall Smith reports that this project is using the
Received Text underlying the KJB.
KAMEA
(Papua, New Guinea)
The Kamea language has never been put into writing. Thirtythousand people live in a region without roads. Missionaries must fly in.
Jason and Cherith Ottosen are on their way as missionaries to these
people. They are committed to put the Kamea language into writing and
to translate the Received Text into this language.
KURMANJI
(Kurdish, Turkey)
There has never been an Old Testament in Kurmanji. The
International Bible Society New Testament is Critical Text.
283
Faithful underground believers have translated Scripture portions

and have them printed privately. For more information contact Phil
Stringer at philstringer@att.net.
KIRIBATI
(Gilbertine Islands)
Hiram Bingham, Jr and several Hawaiian preachers arrived in
Kiribati in the 1860s. Bingham was the son of pioneer missionary to
Hawaii, Hiram Bingham. They turned the Kiribati (also called Gilbertese)
language into a written language. They released the entire Bible in 1893.
It was originally a Traditional Text Bible. Critical Text Revisions were
introduced in 1954 and 1977.
This language is still the first language in their area. The Received
Text Bible is no longer in print. There are people praying that one of the
Bible printing ministries would take this up as a project.
KOREAN
The first Korean Bible translation was not published until 1882. It
does not appear that there was ever a serious attempt at a Received Text
Bible in Korean until the last twenty years.
There appear to be several Received Text Bible projects in Korea.
Dr Seo Dal Seok has produced the King James Version Korean
edition. It is a bilingual Bible with the King James Bible and his
translation of the King James Bible into Korean, printed side by side. For
more information please contact Dr Ron Tottingham, Great Plains
Divinity School, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
The Received Text Bible Society is offering a new translation in
Korean that it says is based upon the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the
Greek Received Text. However, this translation seems to have a strong
sectarian base (Presbyterian). It refers to John the Baptist as John the
Sprinkler.
Dr Dongsoo Jung produced a Received Text Bible in Korean. He
was encouraged in this process by Dr D A Waite (William Carey Bible
Society board member). A copy can be obtained from the Dean Burgon
Society (see their website DBS@DeanBurgon Society.org).
For the past three to four years there has been interest in a new
translation of the Korean Bible. Recently a committee was formed and
284
organized with Missionary Pastor Jim Taylor and Pastor David Eum as
the head translators. The committee consists of nine members which are
divided into two groups. One group because of their Greek and Hebrew
abilities is translating from that source. They also confer with the King
James Bible, as well as other good, faithful and accurate translations. The
other group is translating from the King James Bible. These men are
fluent in English and Korean and are capable of using many helps to do
their work. Upon completion of a particular chapter the two groups come
together comparing their works and make the appropriate changes. If by
some reason they cannot come to agreement, it is presented to the group
for a vote and at that time a decision is made. Consulting help is also
given by Korean nationals and Korean speakers outside of Korea. They
have finished several books of the New Testament: Matthew, John,
Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Jude and Revelation and they hope to
finish the first edition New Testament in two to six years.
LADINO
(Spoken in Turkey and Israel)
Ladino is known as Judeo-Spanish. The Bible was first translated
from the Ferrara Spanish Bible in 1553. It was edited by Moshe Loyar.
The New Testament was revised in 1743. The Old Testament in 1829.
LAOS
To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a conservative
(Textus Receptus based) Lao translation in the current era (quite possibly
one in bygone decades that is now long out of print). However, there are
presently two Textus Receptus based translation projects underway.
One is the Isan translation being done by Baptist missionary Ron
Myers in the Isan language of Northeast Thailand. Isan is closely related
to Lao, and Ron has transposed Luke, John, and Ephesians into Lao script
on a trial basis and sent it into Communist Laos. Word came back that it
was enjoyed by the Lao believers who received it, saying it was very
understandable, having been done in their everyday, spoken language.
Another, more recent attempt at a Textus Receptus based Lao
translation, is presently being done by a Baptist missionary stationed in
Vientiane, Laos. Ron Myers was recently given John and Romans, and
said that what he read seemed quite good.
285
The United Bible Societies most recent meaning-based Lao

translation update was done in 2004. In the Societies own words, ...
some conservatives are still reluctant to accept this new translation. In
actuality, it is being rejected by Lao believers in general, who say it is
weak and difficult to comprehend.
LATVIAN
Part of the Bible was first published in Latvian in 1637. Johann
Ernst Gluck (1654-1705) a Lutheran Pastor led the Reformation era effort
to translate the Bible with Latvian. The NT was released in 1685 and the
OT in 1689. He clearly used Received Text original languages and
checked his work against the Lutheran Bible. He was financially
supported in this effort by the King of Sweden.
The place where Gluck worked is now the Aluksne Bible Museum
in Alukne, Latvia. This museum records the history of Bible translation in
Europe. It is the only museum of its kind in Europe. His step-daughter
became the wife of the Czar of RussiaKatherine the First. He moved to
Russia dying in Moscow.
A revised Text translation was released in 1965 and is still
availableThe Izdevuma Revidetois Teksts. An ecumenical translation
was released in 1997.
The Russian Bible Society (Ashville, NC) has a Latvian Bible
available. They are not sure of its origin or derivation but it contains the
verses normally omitted in a Critical Text Translation.
LITHUANIAN
The first complete Lithuanian Bible was published in 1735 in
Karaliaucius, Lithuania. It was a Protestant translation based on
traditional texts.
A charismatic group, The Word of Faith Bible Center, published a
Bible in 1996. Their statement is that it was a revision of the 1735 Bible.
This Bible is made available by the Russian Bible Society.
Missionary Ron Peldin has said: This is the Bible that has been agreed
upon by the independent Baptist national pastors, missionaries,
missionary pastors, lay workers and the general public as the best
translation currently available in the Lithuanian language.
286
LSIU
(Southwestern China, Northern Burma and Thailand)
In 1915 a Lsiu alphabet was developed by China Inland Missionary
missionary James O Fraser. This alphabet was officially adopted by the
Chinese government in 1992.
Fraser (1886-1938) was from Britain. He spent fifty years in Yunnan
(southern China). In 1936 he and Allyn Cooke released a translation of
the New Testament. The base text was the King James Bible. They
compared their work with the first edition of Westcott and Hort (thus
missing their textual sources).
In 1968, Allyn Cooke and Alan Crane released an Old Testament.
The base text was the Revised Standard Version.
In 1976 Orville Carlson released a Lsiu translation from the King
James Bible. It was published by the Trinitarian Bible Society.
In 1979 another Lsiu Bible was released by the Bible Society of
Thailand. The New Testament was based on the United Bible Societies
third edition Greek New Testament. The Old Testament was based upon
the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version.
A revision of the 1968 translation is underway.
MALAY
Dutch Protestant missionaries translated the Received Text into
Malay in 1734.
It was replaced in 1929 by a Critical Text based translation. In 1971,
an ecumenical translation was released. This was based upon Good News
for Modern Man and translated upon principles of Dynamic Equivalence.
MALAYALAM
(Kerala, India)
German missionary Dr Herman Gundert (1814-1893) produced the
first Malayalam grammar (1868) and dictionary (1872). He translated the
Lutheran Bible into Malayalam. He was highly regarded as a linguist. A
statue of him was erected in Tellicherry. Novelist Herman Hesse is his
grandson.
287
MAORI
(New Zealand)
The Maori language had never been placed in writing before the
arrival of missionaries. A New Testament translated by William Yates was
released in 1837. Under the leadership of Rev Maunsell, William Henry
Williams and Elizabeth Colenso the entire Bible was printed in 1858. It
was Traditional Text based.
In 1889 a Critical Text translation was released. It faced strong
opposition from the national people.
MOHAWK
(American and Canadian Indian)
The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel published a
translation of the Bible into Mohawk in 1787. At that time their stated
policy was to use the King James Bible as their source text.
The Bible was translated by missionary John Stuart and Mohawk
Indian, Joseph Brant. Brant was a famous warrior (for the British) during
the American War for Independence.
Captain John Norton, a Cherokee Indian, produced a Mohawk
translation in 1804. It was the first non-English Bible ever printed by the
British and Foreign Bible Society.
MARATHI
(Maharashtra, India)
William Carey first translated the Bible into Marathi in the early 19th
century. The Bible Society of India made a number of revisions.
Ratnakar Hasi Kelkar (1901-1985) translated the New Testament
into Marathi. His work has been known for strong linguistic ability.
M S Mantode made arrangements to translate the Thompson Chain
Reference Bible into Marathi. This necessitated translating the King
James Bible into Marathi. The Bharatrya Suwarta Mission exists to
promote this reference Bible. The mission can be contacted at
arvindmantode@yahoo.com.
MONGOLIA
The Mongolia Bible Society has withdrawn from the United Bible
Societies in protest over modernism in the United Bible Societies. They
288
are at work on a Bible translation to replace the current Critical Text

United Bible Societies Bible. I have not been able to obtain any specific
information on the specific base text or translation principles for this
project.
A second Bible translation project in Mongolia is the Mongolia
Mission team. This project involves two Baptist missionaries and four
nationals working full time. They have a sound doctrinal statement.
The Mongolia Mission team makes this statement about their
translation source: The source of translation will be the King James
Bible, known as the authorized version (AV). We consider this Bible to
be the preserved Word of God in the English language. There are no
experts in the Mongolian language and the Greek and Hebrew languages;
however, they are skilled translators from English to Mongolian.
Therefore, the decision was made to translate from the King James Bible
as much as possible and within the limits of ability constant references
will be made to Greek and Hebrew using available references and
resources.
Dr Charles Keen of First Bible International has announced that
First Bible along with the Trinitarian Bible Society are sponsoring a
translation in the Mongolian language. This project is supervised by
missionary Bill Patterson. Missionary Roland Gay is in Mongolia
heading up the translation effort there. They have released a translation of
the Book of John.
MONTAGNARD
The Montagnard tribes exist in Laos and Vietnam. They were strong
allies of the United States in the 1960s and 1970s. Christian and
Missionary Alliance missionaries translated the Bible into their language
in the 1930s. In 1975 the Communists ordered all copies of this Bible to
be burnt! There are several Montagnard churches in the United States.
The 1930s Bible is still printed on occasion for missionary distribution.
We are not aware of any current availability.
MYANMAR
(Also Called Burma)
The Judson Version
This very helpful letter was sent by missionary Tom Gaudet:
289

Background: Like many others we assumed the Judson text of the Burmese
New Testament, first printed in 1832, translated by A Judson, was translated
from the Greek Textus Receptus. Because of the assumption that the text
was reliable, only an abbreviated text check was made inside Burma with
national pastors. This was an omissions check, designed to identify texts
which have been translated with other than the Textus Receptus. Within the
first couple of hours of working on this, we identified a small number of
verses which had been translated from something other than the Textus
Receptus.
Since the Bible being checked was the last printed by the Myanmar Bible
Society, we assumed that there had been revisions on it, incorporating the
readings of the Critical Greek Texts. Our research showed that there had
been a revision in 1933 so that was where we started. We thought to go
backwards until we found where the spurious readings were inserted. We
located a Bible printed in 1907 and had it checked. Essentially the same
changes were in that text.
Next we located an 1832 New Testament which would have been the first
printed edition. That edition was checked and the same changes were in it.
By this time we had ruled out someone else changing the text since Judson
was very much alive when that New Testament was printed. He would have
been the one who edited the New Testament he had finished in 1826.
After the first check, we had another more thorough check done on several
hundred verses. Most of the verses checked were quite accurate, with only a
handful of problem verses. This held true in the early as well as the more
recent editions of the Bible. The same problem verses are in the earlier
editions that are in the latter. We had verified that most other changes made
in later editions did not indeed take into account Critical Text readings,
rather than made spelling changes. A total of four editions of the Judson
Bible were compared.
It was about this time that a researcher in America pointed out a book,
Memoir of Adoniram Judson Being a Sketch of His Life and Missionary
Labors, by J Clement, published in New York by C. M. Saxton, Baker &
Co., 1860. A quote from that book on pages 237-239 cleared up a lot of the
confusion.
In the first edition of the Old Testament, I paid too much regard to the
critical emendations of Lowth, Horsley, and others. In the present edition, I
have adhered more strictly to the Hebrew text. In my first attempts at
translating portions of the New Testament, above 20 years ago, I followed
Griesbach, as all the world then did; and though, from year to year I have
found reason to distrust his authority, still, not wishing to be ever-changing,
I deviated but little from his text, in subsequent editions, until the last; in
290

preparing that which I have followed the text of Knapp, (though not
implicitly), as upon the whole the safest and best extant; in consequence of
which the present Burmese version of the New Testament accords more
nearly with the received English.
As to the merits of the translation, I must leave others to judge. I can only
say that though I have seldom done anything to my own satisfaction, I am
better satisfied with the translation of the New Testament then I have then
ever expected to be. The language is, I believe, simple, plain, and
intelligible; and I have endeavored, I hope successfully, to make every
sentence a faithful representation of the original. As to the Old Testament, I
am not so well satisfied. The historical books are, perhaps, done pretty well;
but the poetical and prophetical books are, doubtless, susceptible of much
improvement, not merely in point of style, but in rendering of difficult
passages, about which of the most eminent scholars are not yet agreed.
I commend the work, such as it is, to God, to the church in Burma, and to
my successors in this department of labor, beginning them to spare my
errors, and yet not prematurely to correct a supposedly era, without
consulting the various authors which I have consulted, and ascertaining the
reasons of my position; and especially not to adopt a plausible correction,
in one instance, without inquiring whether it is admissible and advisable in
all parallel and similar passages.
In prosecuting the work, I have derived a valuable aid from several of my
missionary brethren, especially from brother Wade formally, and Brother
Jones, now of Bangkoklaterally from the brother and Mason, Comstock,
and Stevens. Of the several hundred suggestions that have been sent me
from different quarters, I have sooner or later adopted by far the greater
part, though in many cases with some modification. Nor ought I to forget
my native brother, Mong En, my faithful fellow-laborer for many years,
even before the present revision was begunone of our most judicious and
devoted assistance.
I am no Greek text expert but am told that even the Critical Text of
Griesbach was actually based on the Textus Receptus. This explains the
deviations where we found them, but overall the reading very accurate.
It will be necessary for a complete and thorough examination of the text to
be done before anything to correct the problems. From what we have seen
so far, it is estimated that over 90% of the text as it was last printed by the
Bible Society is fine.
What to do for now? The Bible Society only publishes the Judson Bible
sporadically. The indication that there were even any needs was that the
brethren in Burma asked if there was any way that we could get Judson
291

Bibles for them. We checked with the Bible Society and indeed during
those days there was no stock and no plan to reprint.
Only 5,000 have been printed by the Bible Society since that time. Of
course, they push a common language Bible they are printing.
The plan that makes sense is to simply reprint the existing text to meet
immediate needs. Indeed, BEAMS ministry has printed 10,000 copies of
the Bible. We have obtained around 4,000 of these and most of them are in
the hands of brethren in Burma. Literally many tens of thousands more are
needed at this time.
As these are being printed and distributed, plans are underway to have
brethren in Burma do a thorough examination of the text and identify the
problem areas. We have not met any pastor inside Burma who realized the
problems existed until they were pointed out. However, there is a multitude
of men who are highly educated and only lack the encouragement to take
this matter as their own. It will be Burmese brethren who correct these
problems. We need to encourage and equip them.
NAGA
(Northeast India)
In 1872, American Baptist missionary Edwin Winter Clark began to
translate the Bible into the Ao language of the Naga people (they have
other languagesthis is often referred to as the jungle language).
He was aided by several nationals and by this wife, Mary. In 1929
they printed the New Testament. They translated from the King James
Bible and used a literal translation method.
Later editions introduced Critical Text readings and dynamic
equivalence.
This translation effort created a written language for the people of
Nagaland.
NAMA
(Nambia, Namabualand, Union of South Africa)
The first translation of the New Testament into the Nama language
was done by German missionary, Johann Schmelen and his wife, Sara (a
national). It was released in 1825.
Missionary G Kronlein (also German) undertook a new translation
in the 1860s. By his specific statement his New Testament was based
upon the Textus Receptus. He also consulted the German Lutheran Bible,
292
the King James Bible, the French Olivetan Bible and the Italian Diodati
Bible. He also translated the Old Testament. His work was published by
the British and Foreign Bible Society.
The currently published Nama Bible is a Critical Text based revision
of Kronleins work.
NAVAJO
A bilingual, Navajo-English Bible has been released by missionary
Ron Corley.
Over 60 Navajo believers worked at translating the King James New
Testament into Navajo. It was published by Bearing Precious Seed,
Milford, Ohio.
Ron Corely can be reached at PO Box 747, Bloomfield, NM 87413.
NEPAL
David Cloud began a translation of the King James Bible into the
Nepali in the 1980s. The New Testament is in its third revision. The Old
Testament is nearing completion. Prior to the publication of this New
Testament, there was no Received Text based translation in Nepali.
David Cloud gives this account of the Nepali translation.
January 14, 2009 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service,
PO Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@
wayoflife.org).
From the time that we first arrived in Nepal in 1979, my wife and I had a
burden to produce sound Bible literature in the Nepali language. There
were no Bible study tools such as a concordance, Bible dictionary, or
commentaries. We began looking into the possibility of making a
concordance, but as we discussed the matter with Nepali pastors they were
unanimous in the opinion that the Bible itself needed revision before a
concordance was made. In the process of examining the Nepali Bible in
1979-80, I learned that it was based on the English Revised Version of
1885, that much of the language was seriously outdated, and that the
translation overall was poor.
It was during the research that I learned about the textual side of the Bible
version issue. I was particularly impressed with the books, The King James
Bible Defended, A Space-age Defense of the Historic Christian Faith by
Edward F Hills that I had picked up somewhere. The first edition of this
was published in 1956. Hills had a doctorate in textual criticism from
293

Harvard, but he approached the issue from a Bible-believing, faith position
rather than from the modernistic position of the fathers of textual criticism.
I wrote to the address on the book hoping that I could communicate with
him, but his widow replied and said that he had died earlier that same year
(1981). She was very kind and gave me some copies of Hills book for
distribution in South Asia. Another man that helped me a lot in those days
was Bruce Lackey. He was the head of the Bible School at Tennessee
Temple when I was a student there, and he graciously answered many
questions for me on the Bible version issue. I also corresponded in those
days with David Otis Fuller. He kindly replied to each of my frequent
letters and to the many questions I had on the issue. (Lackey and Fuller died
the same year, in 1988.)
The most impressive thing I learned was the textual issue. I came to
understand that the modern versions since the Revised Version of 1881
have been based on a Greek text that was invented through the science of
modern textual criticism and that favors manuscripts that originated in
Egypt in the early centuries when it was a hotbed of theological heresy. The
critical text shows clear signs of doctrinal tampering (we give more than 50
examples in our book, Faith vs. the Modern Bible Versions) and was not
used by Bible-believing churches for 1,500 years of church history. It
differs radically from the Received Text underlying the old Protestant
versions.
After much prayer, I came to a conviction that the Received Text is the
preserved Word of God and that the King James Bible is a lovely
translation thereof in English, and I was very sad that no such translation
existed in Nepali. The first missionary translations in South Asia (e.g. India,
Burma) in the 19th century were based on the Received Text, but in the 20th
century these were replaced by versions based on the critical text, the Bible
Societies being the chief culprits in this change.
I discussed the issue with the head of the Bible Society of Nepal and
showed him the materials that I was studying, and he gave me the
impression that he, too, was convinced that we needed a new translation of
the Nepali Bible that was different in character from the old. I was therefore
shocked when I learned that even while he was discussing the issue with
me, the Bible Society of Nepal was printing a common language edition of
the Nepali Bible based on the deeply corrupt Todays English Version (also
called Good News for Modern Man). The chief translator of this version in
English was a modernist named Robert Bratcher, a Southern Baptist
missionary who does not believe that Jesus is God and has refused to give a
testimony of his salvation in his seminars. Not only did he use the corrupt
critical Greek text, but he also incorporated the dynamic equivalency
294

method of translation that takes amazing and frightful liberties with Gods
words. He further sullied the Bible by changing the word blood to death
in key doctrinal passages such as Romans 3:25. He corrupted practically
every passage dealing with the deity of Christ. For example, in Philippians
2:6, the Todays English Version reads, He always had the nature of God,
but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.
I was so disturbed about the new version that I published a pamphlet in
Nepali to warn the Christians.
About this time a team of young evangelists from Switzerland arrived in the
country. They drove overland from Europe in Mercedes trucks and were
very enthusiastic. For their gospel literature distribution program they
purchased a quantity of the new Nepali common language New Testaments.
We met soon thereafter and they spent some time at our home in
Kathmandu. When they told me about their goals, the issue of the new
Nepali New Testament came up and I told them some of the things I had
discovered in my research. They were shocked. They were so shocked, in
fact, that they went back to the Bible Society man and asked for their
money back. When he refused, they burned the copies, being convinced
they were of the devil.
When this happened, we were in India getting new visas, and such a thing
as burning Bibles (even corrupt ones) was something that had never crossed
my mind. I had absolutely nothing to do with it, but the Bible Society head
falsely blamed me without even talking to me about it. He got some of the
ashes from the fire (allegedly) and photocopied a picture of them on a letter
that he sent to all of the churches, claiming that David Cloud burned the
Bible. To this day there are people that believe this lie. Soon thereafter the
Bible Society leader was at the forefront of an attempt to get us to leave the
country. He and leaders of other organizations (including the Nepal
Christian Fellowship, Campus Crusade, Youth for Christ, the Assemblies of
God, and United Mission to Nepal) met together and formulated a letter
charging me with dividing the body of Christ in Nepal and demanding that
we stop all our works and leave the country. So much for non-judgmental
tolerance!
It was at that point that I knew that there was no hope that the Bible Society
would produce a pure Bible for the needy people of that land, and I began
to pray earnestly for God to raise up men for that work. I prayed for three
years, and to my knowledge, I was the only person in the country that was
seeking to do something about the need for a pure translation of the Nepali
Bible. It was a lonely vigil. I prayed until I met a man named Daniel Rai.
He was an evangelist with the El Shaddai group in Darjeeling, and I met
him on one of his visits to Kathmandu. Upon our first meeting I was
295

impressed that he was the man for the Bible translation work, and I asked
him to pray about it. I also gave him materials on the Bible version issue to
help him understand the textual issue and the fact that the existing Nepali
Bible was corrupt.
There are three major qualifications for Bible translation work. The man
must know Christ savingly and be Spirit-filled, he must be equipped
educationally; he must understand and be committed to godly principles of
Bible translation. I was convinced that Daniel was such a man. He had been
a school teacher before God called him into evangelism. I was so burdened
about the translation that I made a long, difficult trip all alone from
Kathmandu to the border of Bhutan to meet Daniel and try to impress him
with the urgency of such a project.
The trip was by bus, jeep, taxi, rickshaw, and foot. It began with an
overnight bus trip across the mountains from Kathmandu to the southern
part of Nepal. It is only 50 miles as the crow flies, but requires many hours
on a bus because of the steep mountains and treacherous roads. The buses
are ill-maintained, to say the least, often with bald tires and bad brakes. The
roads are barely wide enough for two vehicles to pass, and the one on the
outside is dangerously near the edge of a sheer precipice. When
maneuvering a hair pin turn, the drivers take the middle of the road and
there is always the danger of meeting another bus coming full bore down
the steep mountain, also taking the middle. Such journeys are made worse
by the screechy Indian cinema music that blares out of cheap speakers, by
the constant swaying and shaking from the monster potholes, by the
overcrowded conditions (not only with people but also goats and chickens),
and by the smell, which is a mixture of vomit, diesel fumes, and the stench
of long unwashed bodies and cheap tobacco. And the drivers drink.
Daniel was preaching in Bhutan and I could not enter the country because
of visa restrictions, but I got someone from his church to fetch him to the
border, where I met him one evening in a small room lit by a kerosene
lantern. I begged him to pray seriously about the possibility of giving
himself to the task of Bible translation, and he asked me to talk to his
church leaders. The senior elder was his father-in-law, Brother Fudong, so I
went to Kalimpong and met with him and other leaders of El Shaddai and
poured my heart out to them. (I also went to Darjeeling on that trip and
purchased a batch of Christian literature to use in our correspondence
course ministry, and I was miraculously able to bring them through the
customs shed at the eastern border of Nepal even though such a thing was
illegal then.)
The result was that Daniel had peace about the project and his leaders gave
him permission to come apart from his other responsibilities in order to
296

pursue this new vision. He moved to Kathmandu in 1984 with his family
and began the work.
I laid out the principles of translation as follows, and Daniel agreed to them.
They were first printed on March 22, 1984.
1. Our goal is to produce a standard Nepali Bible with notes and cross
references, plus a companion concordance and dictionary.
2. The new Nepali version will be based upon the King James Version and
other accurate translations of the Textus Receptus, with reference to the
original languages when necessary. Translations have been made into Hindi
and Bengali from the Textus Receptus. These languages are kin to Nepali
and will be helpful, especially Hindi.
3. The exact meaning of the original must be preserved.
4. Account must be given to every word and to the smallest detail of the
original.
5. Even the sentence construction of the original should be maintained
when possible.
6. If the translator feels a passage or word of the original will not be
understood, he must use explanatory footnotes rather than change Gods
words.
7. As far as possible, the translation should be majestic in its reading.
8. The translation will be reviewed from three main anglesaccuracy (the
primary consideration), readability, and understandability. We want to use
the simplest Nepali words possible which express the exact meaning of the
original language, but we will not sacrifice accuracy for the sake of
understanding. When it is not possible to find a Nepali wording which does
justice to the original, we will use Hindi or Sanskrit. Footnotes will be used
for explanations. We are preparing a Nepali Bible dictionary which can
help define any difficult or non-indigenous words used in the translations.
Eventually Thomas Kaufmann joined the Bible translation project and was
a major contributor. Other Nepali men also helped, but Daniel and Thomas
were the main translators. The first edition of the New Testament was
printed in the 1990s. As of this writing (2008) the Old Testament is nearing
completion. Many things have happened to slow the work down, including
sickness and the death of Daniels wife, not to speak of demonic oppression
and various strange troubles that are always a part of such a venture.
This New Testament is far from perfect. In fact, it needs a lot of future
revision, but it is textually sound and is a good foundation for others to
build upon. Daniel and Thomas have labored in the heat of the day and
given the Nepali people a great treasure. They are true pioneers. Those who
297

follow and revise their work are traveling a road that has already been well
prepared and is therefore much easier trod. The trees have been cut down,
most of the stumps removed; the rivers bridged.
The perfecting of the English Bible took 200 years (from Wycliffes version
of 1380 to the King James of 1600).
The Trinitarian Bible Society produced a Nepalese New Testament,

Psalms and Proverbs based upon a revision of David Clouds work. The
main translator is Thomas Kaufman who lives in India. He and the TBS
share the copyright. They print in India and have one distribution in
Nepal.
The Jagerna Translation Project is producing a Received Text
Translation of the Bible in Nepali. It states: It is crucial that an accurate
translation of the Holy Bible in the common Nepal tongue be produced
a translation that unerringly mirrors the Scriptures as originally inspired
by God, faultlessly preserved with historical continuity in the context of
Bible-believing Christianity, and clearly manifested in the English
authorized King James Bible. The Nepali people deserve the option of a
pure Bible in their common tongue.
They can be reached at jboyd@fpgm.org.
NORWEGIAN
The Norwegian AV Bible was published in 2000. Morten
Gjemlestad and Tom Vandenberg led the translation effort with help from
Norwegian and Danish men and American missionaries.
Dr Howard Nelson of Scandanavians for Christ was instrumental in
supporting this project. The base source text was the King James Bible. It
was compared diligently with old Danish Bibles. It is published by some
of the Bearing Precious Seed branches.
OJIBAWA
(ChippewaAmerican Indian)
The American Bible Society released a translation of the Bible in
the language of the Ojibawa in 1845. It was translated by Rev H H
Spaulding. At that time the policy of the American Bible Society was that
all translations must be made from the Received Text and must conform
to the King James Bible. Mr Spaulding issued a revision in 1883.
298
OROMO
(Also Called Northern Galla)
Ethiopia, the Sudan
Onesimus Nesib (1850-1931) translated the Bible from the Amharic
language into Oroma. He was a former slave who had been purchased
and set free by the Swedish Evangelical Mission. He was aided by Aster
Ganno, a young, female ex-slave.
The translation was released in 1893. It is credited with destroying
polygamy and slavery among the Oromi people and creating a written
language for the Oromi people.
This translation was used for over 100 years. It was replaced in 1997
by a Critical Text translation from the Bible Society of Ethiopia. This was
replaced in 2006 by another Critical Text translation.
PATOIS
Also known as Patwa Jamaican Creole or Jamaican.
The Bible Society of the West Indies is sponsoring a translation of
the Bible into the Patois languagethe language developed by the
Jamaican slave culture of the 17th and 18th centuries. The project is
expected to take 12 years and cost $60 million dollars. Many in Jamaica
oppose the translation because virtually everyone in Jamaica speaks
English and Patois is considered slang. Some are concerned that Patois
is such a limited language that much Bible truth cannot be accurately
translated into this language. Bruce Goldberg, the Prime Minister
opposes the project on the grounds that it detracts from the proper grasp
of English. Several English translations serve as the source text for the
translations.
OSSETIAN
In 1848 a Bible was translated into Ossetian. The source text was
the Russian Synodal Bible. It is available from the Russian Bible Society.
PEQUOT
The first Bible printed in the United States was the 1663 translation
by John Eliot into the language of the Pequot tribe. He first had to put the
Pequot language into writing. He translated from the Received Text.
299
Thousands of Pequot Indians made professions. Since 1887 the

language has been deadno living person still speaks it.
PIDGIN
Papua, New Guinea is one of the most unique and diverse countries
that can be found in the world. Papua, New Guinea is a conglomeration
of peoples and cultures located just north of Australia. Papua, New
Guinea has a population of more than 4 million and has between 700 to
800 tribal languagesalmost 1/5 of all the languages in the world. Pidgin
is one of the main languages known throughout the islands.
A New Testament translation of the English King James Version
into the Pidgin language was done by a group of missionaries and
nationals in Papua, New Guinea. Missionary Scott Carrier was
instrumental in the translation process.
A bilingual Pidgin and King James Bible is available. This may be
obtained from some Bearing Precious Seed branches.
POLISH
In 1632, the Gdansk (Danzig) Bible was produced by Polish
Protestants. The primary translator was Daniel Mikolajewski. It was
clearly a Received Text Bible. It is still being published in Poland and is
often called the Old Gdansk Bible.
Missionary Brent Riggs has produced a New Testament based upon
the Old Gdansk Bible. It is still in the purification process. This New
Testament does not take the Verbal Plenary Translation approach that the
William Carey Bible Society endorses. He can be reached at Brent Riggs
mitexas@yahoo.com The NT has been printed and is now available.
The Trinitarian Bible Society of England also has a Polish New
Testament in print. This was first published in 1830.
Missionary Joe West is working on an update of the old Polish
Bible. He can be reached at jnwest@webmedia.pl.
PORTUGUESE
A Biblia SagradaAlmeida CorrigidaFiel (ACF). Translator:
Joao Ferreira de Almeida. The New Testament was completed in 1679.
Old Testament, Genesis through Ezekiel 41:8, before his death in 1691.
The whole Bible was completed by Jacobus Op den Akker (1753).
300
Translated in Indonesia where Almeida fled to escape the Inquisition,

working with the Portuguese colony there, and supported by the Dutch
Reformed Church. It was based on the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek
Textus Receptus, using formal equivalency method of translation.
Trinitarian Bible Society of London printed the Almeida New
Testament in 1837 and the entire Bible in 1847 but ceased printing in the
1940s when orthographic revision became necessary and two Brazilian
organizations began publishing. Doctrinally conservative Brazilians
became alarmed that undue modifications had been made in the text,
further radical changes were underway, and the two publishers declared
they held the copyright and would not permit any other organization to
print the Bible. Thus, the Sociedade Biblica Trinitariana do Brasil was
formed in 1968, in cooperation with Bearing Precious Seed, to resume
the work of TBS of London and guarantee publication of the Almeida
translation in the most exact text possible. Since its first printing (New
Testament, 1976; entire Bible, 1994; further corrections, 2007), the ACF
has been considered by friend and foe the most accurate in the
Portuguese language.
The Bible may be obtained wherever Portuguese Bibles are sold, or
through Trinitarian Bible Society, Tyndale House, Dorset Road, London
SW19 3NN, England, telephone: 011-4420-8543-7857, e-mail:
trinitarian.bible.society@ukonline.co. Website:www.trinitarianbible
society.org.
Various Bearing Precious Seed groups print and send ACF Bibles to
missionaries and pastors of their groups.
Some serious Bible scholars believe that there are still some Critical
Text readings in this Portuguese Bible and that a final purification
process is needed.
PUNJABI
One of the major Indian languages (covering the border region of
India and Pakistan) Punjabi is now the fourth most common language in
Canada. In 1815, William Carey was the editor for a team that translated
the New Testament into Punjabi. Various portions of the Old Testament
were translated by later missionaries associated with Careys mission.
The entire Bible was published in 1852. In 1868 the Bible was published
in Gurmulshi Punjabi. This was the same language as Punjabi but with a
301
different script. This was the script of the Sikkh people. This Bible was
revised in 1949. It is often called the old Punjabi Bible and is still
available today. This work was supervised by a national leader in the
Anglican Church, Chandy Ray. It is not clear what source text was used
in the work. In 2007, a Easy to Read Version was released. It is clearly
Critical Text.
ROMANIAN
Fidela, a Romanian translation from the Received Text has been
done by a group of Romanian men from a church in Romania. Missionary
Brian Nibbe is leading the translation effort. Their statement for the
Received Text is crystal clear.
New Testaments can be obtained from Bearing Precious Seed
chapters. Brian Nibbe can be contacted at bjnibbe@aol.com or at
Misiunea Baptista Internationala Romania, Filiala Cluj-Napoca, Str.
Livezeni, Nr.12, 400229, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. Also involved in the
Romanian project is Pete Heisey poheisey@gmail.com.
The entire Fidela Bible is now available in Romanian. These
testimonies are given to this Bible. A Romanian Baptist pastor said: I
really like the FIDELA Bible, it reads perfectly. I used to preach on the
street using the Cornilescu translation and nobody ever bothered me.
Since I switched to the FIDELA people spit on me, hit me, yell at me and
oppose me. I wonder if it is because the FIDELA is the Bible and the
Cornilescu is something else?
A Romanian pastor of a Baptist Union Church said: The FIDELA
Translation as a whole is excellentI can hardly wait for it to be
printed!!!
A Romanian teacher said: The grammar is excellent. It is the best
Romanian I have read in any Bible. Anyone who says that it is not
excellent Grammar has a hole in his head.
Veteran independent Baptist missionary Jim Morgan writes: Since I
arrived in Romania in 1995 we have had to use a Bible that was based on
the critical text (Cornilescu). The Fidela Cluj translation is a TR and
Masoretic based translation. I have been using the Fidela Cluj New
Testament for about 4 years and I am looking forward to having the
whole Bible for our Church soon (possibly next week). I am behind this
translation 100%. There is some opposition to it. Even from Independent
302
Baptist Missionaries that dont want to rock the boat. The biggest
opposers are the major evangelical denominations (Baptist Union,
Pentecostal, Brethren, etc.).
Also we received this encouraging note about the Fidela Bible from
missionary Patrick Boyle: We are using the FIDELA translation of the
Bible. We know Bro Nibbe well and support his work. There are a few
areas we have disagreed on in cases where he corrected the KJV with the
Greek. The difference between the Cornilescu (a paraphrased CT
translation) and the FIDELA is incomparable! The Fidela Bible is
translated from the Textus Receptus and reads like the KJV 99% of the
time. Our people began using the NT when it came out 1 year ago. We
have been looking forward to the completion of the OT!
The opposition to Traditional Text Bible Translations is the same
everywhere. So is the challenge that the Lord has given us to reach the
whole world with the pure Word of God.
The Russian Bible Society is now printing the Fidela Translation.
Bro Nibbe reports the Fidela Bible is still being very well received.
ROMANSCH
(Switzerland)
A Romansch New Testament, translated from the Received Text,
was released in 1648. An Old Testament was released in 1718.
RUNYANKORE
(Uganda)
Missionary Dan Olachea is working on a Received Text Bible in the
Runyankore language.
He describes the translation effort this way:
Believing that God is the One who must work through us to do this work,
we have a prayer chain going on in Africa and in America with multiple
churches. We use a report form to keep these churches informed of our
progress and what specific areas of prayer are needed.
The translators are all Banyankore men. They are nationals who live here
and work within the local church. Two of the men are pastors of the
churches in the villages here, one is starting a church in a village, and the
other three are active in their local church.
303

The translation is done verse by verse from the Greek using the translation
worksheet to parse the Greek words and to bring a literal translation. The
parsing is done mainly by means of Perschbachers analytical concordance
of the Greek New Testament. The men use other reference works as well to
understand the Greek, including the King James Bible to arrive at the
nearest formal equivalent word in Runyankore.
They will then work with the literal translation to bring a natural translation
while retaining the Greek word and format as much as possible in the native
language. The work is recorded on the translation record as to the translator
and the dates of translation.
On the worksheet a second translator will go through and check the work of
parsing to make sure there are no clerical errors that would have come into
the text. On the second check another translator will make sure that the
form of the Greek word as indicated has been brought into the receptor
language correctly and that the final text includes each detail of the Greek.
The worksheet then goes to a committee who will review the entire process
again to make sure the Greek has been followed as well as possible.
The text is then typed and sent out with three of the men who will review it
for comprehension with four people in their respective villages. These
reviews are brought back and examined to find any areas of
misunderstanding or problems. The review techniques include having the
person restate the verse in their own words, having the person read the
passage aloud and marking any areas where they stumble or hesitate, asking
questions about the passage, and letting the person proofread the passage
themselves.
The text is then back-translated for checking against the King James and for
translation consultants.
RUSSIAN
The Russian Synodal Bible is often called the standard Received
Text Bible in Russian.
It was translated between 1813 and 1855 by four Russian Orthodox
theological academies. Several historical references say that they
specifically rejected the Septuagint and Slavonic translations to use the
Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus. It was revised in 1876.
This Bible can be obtained from the Russian Bible Society, PO Box
6068, Asheville, North Carolina 28816, (828) 681-0371.
According to its newsletter: The Russian Bible Society has been at
the frontline of providing Bibles for Russia and its people since 1944. We
304
believe that the greatest gift we can give to any people is the pure Word
of God in their native tongue. Therefore, we are committed to continually
providing word-for-word translations based on reliable manuscripts, such
as the Received Greek Text.
The Synodal Bible is also available from the Trinitarian Bible
Society. However, there are several reasons to question the Traditional
Text nature of the Synodal Bible, especially the 1876 Revision. It is clear
that the 1876 Revision was greatly influenced by the Septuagint.
Also, several independent Baptist preachers believe that unsound
translation principles were used in the Synodal translation. They believe
that Orthodox theology of salvation by works has been inserted into
passages that teach salvation by faith.
Missionary John OBrien states, Our church plants include a
statement regarding the Textus Receptus and the fact that while the 1876
Synodal does not constitute the inerrant Preserved Word of God in
Russian, it is however the very closest at this time in both its text
base as well as in its translation method.
Missionary Perry Demopolis and several national Ukrainian
preachers (many Ukrainians use the Russian Bible) have completed a
new Russian New Testament. They have met weekly for over ten years.
They are proofreading their work now.
They have used the King James Bible as their base. According to the
newsletter of missionary Demopolis, they do so because of the advanced
revelation that they believe is contained in the King James Bible.
SAMOAN
Samoan is the language of Western Samoa. Samoa is a group of
islands in the South Pacific Ocean, about one-half of the way from
Hawaii to New Zealand and has a population of more than 200,000. Over
93% of this population speak Samoan and world-wide there are more
than 425,000 Samoan-speaking people.
The Samoan New Testament was translated in the mid-1800s by
missionaries from the London Missionary Society. The translation was
done from the Textus Receptus and was first published by the British and
Foreign Bible Society.
305
SETSWANA
(Also Called Tswana and Botswana)
Zimbabwe, South Africa
Missionary Robert Moffatt (1820-1870) spent fifty years in the town
of Kuruman. His daughter Mary married fellow missionary, David
Livingstone. The church that he pastored is still in existence.
In 1826, Moffatt produced the first spelling book in Setswana. In
1838, he printed a New Testament in Setswana (the first purely African
language to have printed Scriptures). In 1854, he released the Old
Testament. The printing press used in these printings is still in use at the
church.
Moffatt turned Setswana into a written language.
In 1857, the Wooley revision of Moffatts work was released. It is
still in print.
In 1970, a Critical Text Bible, the Central Version, was released.
SHONA
(Zimbabwe)
Missionaries Bill and Janet Eubanks report that they are working
with a Revised 1949 Shona New Testament. The King James Bible is the
basis for the revision.
SIANG
(Indonesia)
Duane and Chrislei Cleghorn are on deputation raising support to go
as missionaries to Indonesia. One of their goals is to translate the Bible
into the Siang language. Their source text will be the King James Bible.
SINASINA
(New GuineaSimbu ProvinceHighlands)
Missionary Charles Turner spent thirty years with the Sinasina
people in New Guinea. He translated the New Testament into their
language. He used the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible as base
texts.
He completed a revision in 2009. He can be contacted at 518-6420578.
306
SINHALI
(Ceylon, Sri Lanka)
The first dictionary for the Sinhali language was produced by
Protestant missionaries in 1892.
Missionary Charles Henry Carter (1828-1914) was a Baptist
missionary to Ceylon. He was fluent in several languages including
Greek and Hebrew. He devoted himself to learning Sinhalese and was
later called by the Anglican Primate of India as the foremost Sinhalese
scholar of this age.
Carter translated the Bible from the Traditional Greek and Hebrew
texts. The New Testament was released in 1861 and the Old Testament in
1881. He revised both and released the revision in 1914. A 1938 revision
is still in print and is often called the Old Version.
In 1982, a Critical Text based New Version was released. In 1990, it
was replaced by the Revised New Version. In 2007, this was replaced by
the New Revised Version.
The Old Version is still used by many evangelical churches.
SLOVENIAN
Lutheran theologian Juriz Dalmatin translated the Bible into
Slovenian. His work was released in 1584. It was printed in Germany and
smuggled into Slovenia. This Bible standardized the Slovenian language.
This was a Received Text translation from Greek and Hebrew. It
was influenced by Luthers German Bible.
A copy of the Slovenian Traditional Text Bible has been located by
Norman Johnston. Plans are being made to put it into print.
Rok Banko is doing a new Slovenian translation based on the King
James Bible and the Traditional Text. He has finished Matthew and most
of Mark. He can be reached at rokbanko@gmail.com.
The Slovenian Standard Version (1996) is a meaning-based
translation based upon the Critical Text.
SORIANI
(Kurdish, Syria, Iraq, Iran)
There has never been a Soriani Old Testament of any kind. Faithful,
underground believers have produced a New Testament which they print
307
privately. This should not be confused with the International Bible

Society New Testament, which is Critical Text and based upon dynamic
equivalency.
SPANISH
Cassiodore Reyna produced a predominately Received Text Spanish
Bible in 1569. Cypriano de Valera revised it in 1602. They did not have
the opportunity to gather teams of scholars as was done in Protestant
countries. Roman Catholic persecution hindered their efforts.
Beginning in 1865, the American Bible Society began to produce
revisions of the Reina-Valera. The first edition of 1865 was an
improvement upon the 1602 revision of Valera, however, it still contained
several departures from the Received Texts as well as some translational
issues. Since the 1865 edition, each new revision departed further away
from the Received Text. By 1960, the Reina-Valera was mixed with many
Critical Text errors.
In the late 1990s, Humberto Gomez, a Mexican missionary and
church planter, began to work on restoring a Received Text version of the
Reina-Valera. He used the Received Text and checked every translation
with the time-honored King James Bible.
Rather than having a translation committee, he invited input from
everyone. He received input from hundreds of sources and he served as
the editor.
In 2004, the Reina-Valera Gomez was released. The purification
process continues as Dr Gomez welcomes input from everyone. Dr
Gomez may be contacted at: humberto__gmz@yahoo.com.
Several William Carey Bible Society board members were involved
in encouraging this process.
The Grace Bible Baptist Church of Santa Catarina, Nuevo Leon,
Mexico has also produced a Received Text based Bible. Under the
leadership of Pastor Raul Reyes and missionary Bill Park, they have
worked for several years on this project. It is known as the Antigua Valera
1602Purified. Missionary Park and Pastor Reyes are no longer working
together. Each appear to be distributing this Bible. For more information
contact Pastor Raul Reyes at gracia209@hotmail.com. Promoters of this
version have hurt its credibility with wild attacks on the RVG. There is no
resemblance between their fantastic rumors and the truth.
308
SRANANTONGO
(Suriname)
Missionary Bob Patton began a project to translate the Received
Text into Sranantongo in 1991. He was aided by seven national helpers. It
was completed in 1998. It is the best selling Bible in Suriname. He can be
reached at bobpatton@sr.net.
Missionary Patton states:
Dear Dr Stringer, I thought I would drop you a note concerning my story of
translation, hoping that it might prove helpful in the future. As a small child,
I accompanied my missionary parents to China just before World War II.
We were interned in a prisoner-of-war camp in the Philippine Islands for
over three years. At age 11, after being in the United States a few years, I
believed that the Lord would have me to be a medical missionary to Africa.
I proved an excellent student in Science and Math, but not outstanding in
languages. While in college, I had to take the elementary course in French
followed by two additional years; as I had taken only Latin in high school.
Language was OK, but certainly not my best area.
Through scholarships I went to college, and then with more scholarships
graduated from medical school with honors. This was followed by eight
additional years of graduate training in internal medicine and cardiology,
culminating in becoming a board certified internist.
We then went to Liberia, West Africa, where I was professor of medicine
under USAID. I set up a successful program over five years, and was
decorated for my work by the Liberian government. During our time in
Liberia, I was saved. I returned to the United States in private practice in a
Christian group, giving up my academic career in teaching medicine. I
joined an Independent Baptist Church, was involved as a bus captain,
counselor, taught the adult Sunday School class, was deacon chairman, and
then was called to Suriname in 1986.
In Suriname, we were confronted with two languages, Dutch, the language
of education and Sranantongo, the common language of the people we were
working with. I taught in the medical school part time to keep a presence in
the medical area to be able to work in church planting and medicine in the
interior. I worked on both languages and started a church during our first
five years. I was frustrated while training nationals because the only Bible
we had was the New Testament and Psalms done about 1820, with a lot of
language changes since. I had decided to retire from medicine when I
reached age 60 (I was age 53) and start translating. The Lord had different
ideas.
309

Through a sickness, the Lord made it clear that I should retire at age 53,
giving up medicine totally, which was a very difficult decision for me.
Instead of teaching medicine, I started translating the Bible mornings, and
continued the church planting work the rest of the time. That year we also
started a radio ministry (now 22 broadcasts weekly on 4 stations), a Bible
Institute, initially using Dutch while awaiting Sranantongo, now 18 years
old with about 65 graduates, started a second church with a national pastor
(now 4 with 10 pastors), and started translating the Bible.
The first problem was what text to use. I was not trained in Greek or
Hebrew. After studying the text issue, I decided that I must use the King
James Version although my former pastor in the United States was a strong
advocate of the Critical Text. However, the Lord arranged that a number of
our supporting churches were strong King James Version churches.
The use of the King James Version was difficult in Suriname after I
assembled a team of seven nationals to help me (I also received some
helpful assistance from fellow missionaries as they were able). The
nationals would tend to initially use Dutch as their text base, which was the
NGB translation from the Critical Text, rather than the King James Version
in English. It was only years later that I discovered the Stantenvertalling,
which is the Dutch equivalent for the King James Version. However, after I
showed them the difference in the text, they did follow the King James
Version successfully, although English was their third language.
About three months after I started work, I discovered that SIL had just
decided officially to translate the entire Bible, and not just the New
Testament. When I went to them, I found out that they were using the New
International Version in English as their base text (not the Greek Critical
text). They gave me a 500-page plus text from Eugene Nida who
promulgated dynamic equivalence. And I had on my team a key lady who
had previously worked for SIL, but she had started attending our church,
and was saved. She was an invaluable help.
My national team was otherwise mostly pastors or pastors in training. I
would make a rough translation, and two would correct it. I would
incorporate their corrections, and pass it to a second team of two, who
would then correct the corrected copy. This was repeated a third time.
Before translating, I would read a commentary or two to make certain that I
was not giving some off the wall idea and look up Greek or Hebrew
words as necessary to get a better grasp of the meaning of the words.
Following this process, in three years, we had completed the entire Bible.
We then spent another four years cross-checking it, working on consistent
spelling (there is not an established spelling which is accepted by everyone
in Sranantongo), working on accuracy, smoothness and clarity.
310

Because Bearing Precious Seed ministry came out of one of our supporting
churches, their ministry covered the cost of the first printing. My sister-inlaw asked me what I would be doing about layout (computers were just
developing), and offered to do the entire Bible free of charge as a service to
the Lord. She did layouts for books as a side job, and did a superb job for
us. In 1997, we were done, and in 1998, the Bibles were printed and in
Suriname.
Initially our translation was not accepted by the Suriname Bible Society.
However, we received help from the local Baptist book store owner, who
was willing to take the brunt of distribution despite opposition, and has
become a close friend.
Results: We are now in our third printing after having sold out the first two
printings of 5,000 copies (Suriname is a small country). The Sranantongo
Bible is now the best-selling Bible in Suriname in any language, including
Dutch. The SIL New Testament was completed about 3 to 4 years later, and
was written more in the style of the man on the street. They had a big
initial promotion, and nearly sold out their stock of 10,000 New Testaments
the first night. However, virtually no one uses the translation any more. SIL
is still working on the Old Testament in 2009, but it is not complete.
Since this report, a fourth printing of 10,000 has been done.
SWAHILI
The Swahili language was first put into writing by missionaries who
wanted to translate the Bible into Swahili. Portions of the New
Testament, translated by William Taylor, were published in 1889. This
was clearly based upon the Traditional Text.
In 1909 the Church Missionary Society published the whole New
Testament. In 1914, they published the whole Bible. It is hard to find out
the textual basis for these translations.
The Union Swahili Bible was published in 1952. It is clearly a
Critical Text Bible.
For the past ten years a man by the name of Allen Lear has been
working on a translation based upon the TR. He was born in England and
married a missionaries daughter. They have spent time in Africa and both
are fluent in Swahili. About Mr Lears qualifications, I will let Mr Lear
speak for himself.
I am truly thankful to God for his help and guidance in my life. While living
in Africa, God gave my wife and me a strong and growing love for the
African people and country. God also gave me a strong desire for them to
311

have a Bible translated into their own language that was as accurate as
possible, translated from the original words of God. The desire for accuracy
was enhanced by scientific and other training, which the Lord enabled me
to do. I am thankful to God that He has enabled me to obtain a Master of
Health Science Degree (MHS), and Master of Arts in Translation Studies
(MA) (TS).
May of 2009 Mr Lear passed on to heaven but not without having

the John and Romans finished and printed by some of the Bible printing
ministries in the US. Other missionaries have checked his work and they
have given positive response to its accuracy and faithfulness to the TR.
He has finished other books of the NT but they are in handwritten form.
There is another missionary that has stepped forward desiring to finish
the New Testament translation.
SWEDISH
In 1540-41, the Gustavus Vasa Bible was published in Sweden. It
was named after the reigning king. It was printed in Upsala and is
sometimes known as the Upsala Bible.
This Bible was translated by Laurentius Petri, Laurentius Andrae
and Claus Petri. All three were Lutheran preachers. It was clearly
translated from the Received Text and referenced to the Lutheran Bible. It
was revised in 1618, but with the same textual basis.
P Marion Simms (The Bible in America, 1936, p 107) wrote about
the 1618 Upsala Bible: This remained the standard church Bible of
Sweden for almost 400 years, or until 1917. He has said that this Bible,
occupying the place in Sweden, that the King James Version occupied
among English-speaking Protestants. This Bible is still in print, along
with many later unreliable revisions.
Bro Hagstedt writes this about the Swedish Reformation Bible
Society Project.
We are happy that also Christian brothers in the United States would like to
get information about our project.
Since 1994 we are working with a new translation to Swedish. Our Bible
Society is using the Greek text Textus Receptus for the New Testament
and we revise the old Swedish Bible Carl XIIs Bible from 1703, which is a
translation of Luthers Bible. But when there are differences we are
following Textus Receptus. But the King James Version is also a very
important translation which we use to compare in the New Testament. We
312

finished the New Testament in 2003 and if you are interested you can
download this translation free, without cost from our homepage
www.bibel.se.
In the Old Testament it is different. We cannot follow the old Swedish Bible
because they have sometimes followed the Septuagint and many times Latin
Vulgate Bible. So we are making a translation of the King James Bible.
Now we have finished the five books of Moses. These books can also be
found on our homepage and its possible to download them without cost.
We have between 15-20 people who have worked with this project. Mostly
we work free of charge. That is the reason that the whole Bible will not be
finished soon.
If you would like to inform others about this project, we will be happy. We
need much prayers.
They can be reached at post@bibel.se.
TAGALOG
(Philippines)
Tagalog is the most common of several Filipino languages.
Missionary Roger Riley led a team of national pastors in producing
a New Testament in Tagalog, (Ang Bagong Tipan). According to their
statement, It is taken from the Textus Receptus manuscripts using the
King James Bible 1611 as a proof of text from one language to another.
Missionary Riley has the copyright to this New Testament. It is printed by
some of the Bearing Precious Seed chapters.
However, even the translators do not recommend the use of this
New Testament. They state that this text was simply a rough draft and
was published long before it was ready.
TAHITIAN
Henry Nott arrived in Tahiti from England in 1797. He and other
missionaries spent years trying to master the language and put it into
writing. Some missionaries were killed and others fled. Nott published
the book of John in 1818. The New Testament was published in 1829, the
complete Bible in 1838. Nott used the King James Bible as a textual
base.
313
TAIWANESE
(Min Nan Chinese)
Early Dutch missionaries brought the Dutch Bible to Taiwan in the
1600s. Nationals were taught Dutch by the missionaries.
Scottish missionary, James Laidwell Maxwell produced a
Traditional Text Min Nan New Testament in 1873 and an Old Testament
in 1884. He was a medical missionary and the first missionary to Taiwan
from the English speaking world.
This translation was revised by Thomas Barclay (New Testament,
1916; Old Testament, 1933). The Barclay revision is still in print and
used by Taiwanese evangelicals.
An ecumenical translation was released in 1973. A 2008 translation
of the New Testament was based upon Todays English Version and
dynamic equivalency.
TELEGU
(India)
Telegu is one of the sixteen different official languages of India. In
1993 Indian national Joel Scripalli led a team of several nationals in a
translation of the New Testament. Their textual base was the King James
Bible. Their work was completed in 2003.
According to Dr Solomon Saripalli, translators are currently
working on Old Testament. Their New Testament is published by some
Bearing Precious Seed chapters.
A Telegu translation of the Bible was released by associates of
William Carey in 1854.
The Telegu Bible in common use among evangelicals is based upon
the Critical Text and was heavily influenced by the New International
Version.
TENEK
(Mexican Tribe)
Missionary Fernando Angles is working on a translation of the New
Testament in this tribal language. He is aided by several national Tenek
speakers. The work is based upon the Greek Received Text and is
checked by Ross Hodsdon of Bibles International.
314
THAI
Philip Pope (BIMI missionary to Thailand) began translating the
Bible into Thai in 1983. The project was printed in 2003. He used the
King James Bible and the Received Text as his base.
His translation is officially known as the Thai Bible, King James
Version. It is available from several Bearing Precious Seed sources, and it
can be downloaded from several sites on the internet.
He can be contacted at philippope@thaipope.org.
TONGA
Tonga is a Polynesian language. Missionary John Thomas arrived
there in 1826. He printed a translation of the Bible into Tongan in 1837.
According to the Journal of John Thomas, his translation work was based
upon the Traditional Text. Thomas was a Wesleyan missionary. Soon
there were a number of Wesleyan churches on the island.
Missionary James Egan Moulton (1845-1909) released a new
translation of the New Testament. It was based upon the work of Westcott
and Hort. At first Wesleyan headquarters (in New Zealand) rejected the
translation and Moulton had it printed privately. Eventually
denominational headquarters was persuaded to adopt this translation as
the official one for the churches in Tonga.
Several pastors protested out of loyalty to the Traditional Text.
Eventually the king, George Tupon, declared that the churches in
Tonga were free from control outside the country. Two denominations
developedone using the Thomas Bible, the other the Moulton Bible.
The two denominations eventually mergedwith the understanding that
congregations could use either Bible.
Both Bibles are in print today but the Moulton Bible is in more
common use. In 1966 it was revised. According to the introduction, the
revision was based upon the principles of translation taught by Eugene
Nida.
TURKISH
The first Bible in the Turkish language was translated by Wojciech
Babowski (1610-1675). He was a Polish slave being held in the Ottoman
empire. He was also known as Ali Ufki. He was also a prominent
315
musician. His handwritten manuscript was stored in a library until it was

published in 1821. Ali Ufki knew 16 languages. He clearly used the
Received Text.
A new Turkish Bible was published in 2002.
William Goodall worked on a Turkish Bible in a different dialect,
Turko-Armenian. He translated from 1823 until 1833. It was also
Received Text. It was revised in 1868 and 1878.
Another Turkish Bible was translated and released by 1901. This
was in Greco-Turkisha compilation of modern Greek and Turkish.
This was Received Text based. In 1941, the American Bible Society
revised this Bible with many Critical Text readings.
History of Bible Translation in Turkey:
Imagine a population of, say, English, Greek and Egyptian
communities who all speak English (though with a range of vocabulary
and dialect) but who write it using their own separate scripts. Imagine,
further, that some of the English people want to embellish their literary
and official writing with French and German vocabulary and stylistic
devices. How would you set about preparing a new translation of the
Bible for them all?
Ottoman Turks for the most part wrote a Turkish that was
interspersed with Arabic words for religious purposes and Persian for
literary finesse. Armenians and Greeks, on the other hand, who had been
absorbed so fully into the Turkish empire that they had lost the use of
their mother tongues, spoke versions of Turkish but wrote it in their own
national scripts without any particular literary interest. How could Bible
translation work accommodate this range of Turkish used in speech and
writing? Would one translation be intelligible to everyone? What script(s)
would you use? At what level would you try to pitch the version?
1600s: A Dutch ambassador at the Sultans court persuaded a Polish
slave there known as Ali Bey to translate the Scriptures into Turkish.
That translation was unused in Leyden University until an Englishman Dr
Pinkerton, asked a Turkish-speaking Russian called Baron von Dietz to
work on it in Berlin. The Baron was elderly and died before he could
finish.
1821: First Bible Published. Scholars were raised up from outside
Turkey and in the 19th century, Jean Daniel Kieffer, a Frenchman took up
316
the baton; and a translation of the Bible was published in 1827 by the
Bible Society.
1843: Armeno-Turkish Bible. In 1823 an American called William
Goodell arrived in Beirut and started work on another translation
(Turkish in language, Armenian in script), producing a New Testament in
Malta in 1831. He then went to Constantinople, where he finished the
Bible, in spite of losing all his dictionaries, grammars, commentaries and
manuscripts in the great fire of 1833.
1862: 2nd Turkish translation of Gospels and Acts. Moslem Turks
became interested in the Scriptures of the infidels because of AngloFrench support in the Crimean war, an interest which provoked a search
for a more accurate version of the Bible than Kieffers. A German
scholar-missionary called William Schaffler, who had been in Turkey for
25 years, worked on a fresh idiomatic, producing the four Gospels and
Acts in 1862.
1878: 2 nd Turkish Bible. In 1878 a Dr Pratt did start work in
Constantinople on producing a version in Turkish characters of Goodells
Armeno-Turkish Bible. There were ideas of combining the work of these
two scholars but it came to nothing so the Bible Societies established a
committee of translators with gifted Turkish advisors to try to produce a
Turkish rendering intelligible to all Turkish speakers. They started in
1873. The work of the committee was greatly eased by major political
changes. The bloodless revolution of 1876 that put the liberal Sultan
Murad on the throne provided an opportunity for language reform and a
brief lifting of censorship. Written Turkish became clearer and bolder, the
work of the committee was intense and rapid, and in five years a fresh
Turkish version of the Bible had been produced (1878).
1901: Major revision. 3rd version. There was still a third version to
absorb, however, the Greaco-Turkish version which Henry Leeves had
been instrumental in first producing. By 1901 this version and the 1878
version had been combined into yet another translation, which had about
25 years to run before major changes were forced on the Bible Societies.
1941: Current version. In 1923 Ataturk started on his reform
programme, seeking to restore the Turkish language to something of its
pristine nature, give it its own phonetic script, and rid it of eastern
influences. Clearly the Bible had to be produced in this renewed Turkish
language, and so it was, through the work of Dr Frederick MacCallum,
317
and his son Lyman, in 1941. Turkish believers read it still. This is called
the old Turkish Bible.
2002: New version. A Critical Text based Bible is now being
promoted by the ABS and UBS Bible Societies.
URDU
(Pakistani)
Henry Martin translated the New Testament into Urdu. It was
published in 1814 by the British and Foreign Bible Society. An Old
Testament was released in 1870. These translations are still used by
evangelicals today.
A John-Romans Urdu printing is made available by Local Church
Publishers. This is an 1837 revision of the 1816 Martyn translation.
A Critical Text Urdu Bible was released in 2004.
Raheel Shakeel (Pakistan rakeel@cleargospel.org) is heading up a
project to provide a Received Text Urdu Bible.
UKRAINIAN
The people of the Ukraine have often used Russian Bibles. The first
Ukrainian Bible was published in 1581. It is known as the Ostrog Bible.
It was sponsored by Prince Konstantin Ostrogski (hence the name).
According to Wikipedia, the Ostrog was unique among Slavonic
church translations because it was not based upon the Received Text. It
was translated from the Greek Septuagint.
In the 1860s, a Ukrainian Bible was produced from the Received
Text. The project was led by Panteleymon Kulish.
By 1962 the standard Ukrainian Bible was a Bible Society Bible
translation based on the Critical Text.
In 1992, the Baptist Union produced a new translation. This
translation corrected many of the mistakes of the 1962 translation, but not
all of them.
Yura Popchenko is a national Ukrainian married to an American,
Wendy. He is heading up a new translation project in the Ukraine. He
makes this statement about the text.
We believe that the Bible is the verbally inspired and infallible,
authoritative Word of God and that God gave the words of Scripture by
318

inspiration without error in the original autographs. We believe that God
had promised to preserve His Word and that He has kept that promise by
preserving His infallible Word in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek
Textus Receptus and that the King James Version is an accurate English
translation of the preserved Word of God.
To get ready for this project, Yura studied Biblical languages in

Russian universities (such training was not available in the Ukraine). The
Popchenko family is sponsored by the Bible Baptist Church of
Marysville, California. They have an excellent website entitled,
Translating the Bible into Ukrainian.
VIETNAMESE
The earliest Bibles in Vietnamese were Catholic Bibles.
The first complete Protestant translation of the Bible came in 1926.
It was translated from the Chinese language by missionaries William and
Grace Cadman.
In 1954, the British and Foreign Bible Society released a translation
of the Bible into Vietnamese from the King James Bible. It is often called
the Old Vietnamese Bible or the Vietnamese Bible of 1952. It was the
standard Bible of the Protestants and Evangelicals.
Several Catholic and ecumenical translations have been released,
including a revision of the 1926 version done by the United Bible
Societies.
A translation of the New International Version is being prepared.
WARAY
Waray is one of many languages found throughout the islands of the
Philippines which are located between the Philippine Sea and the South
China Sea, east of Vietnam. There are more than 76 million people in the
Philippines, most of whom claim to be Roman Catholic. Of this
population there are more than 2.4 million Filipinos who speak WarayWaray.
A group of Filipino pastors in northern Samar have translated John
and Romans into this language. They are continuing to work on the New
Testament. They are led in this work by missionary Layne Jones.
319
XHOSA
(South Africa)
The Xhosa language was first placed in writing by missionaries.
Under the leadership of Albert Kropf and John Appleyard a written
language, grammar and dictionary was produced. A Received Text Bible
was released in 1859.
A Critical Text Bible was released in 1889.
YIDDISH
(Eastern Europe, Russia, Israel, the United States)
Yiddish is the language of the Ashkenazi Jews of eastern Europe. It
is a combination of German, Hebrew and Slavic.
The first two Yiddish Bibles were released in 1678 and 1679. One
was released by Uri Foyvesh Halevi. It was heavily based upon the
Traditional Text Dutch Bible and the Traditional Text German Bible. The
second was based upon the Traditional Text Dutch Bible. The chief
translator was Isaac Blitz.
Since many Bible terms did not have a Yiddish equivalent, Dutch
words were inserted.
Joseph ben Alexander Witzenhausen released a translation at about
the same time. It was also heavily influenced by the Dutch Bible.
YORUBA
(Nigeria)
Samuel Ajayi Crowther (1807-1891) was the first native African to
translate the Bible into an African language.
In 1821, he was sold into slavery but was eventually rescued by the
British and sent to Sierra Leone. Three years after his freedom he trusted
Christ. He later wrote: about the third year of liberation from the slavery
of man, I was convinced of another worse state of slavery; namely that of
sin and Satanism.
He returned to Nigeria and produced a dictionary that turned Yoruba
into a written language.
He spent many years translating the New Testament from the
Received Text into Yoruba. His translation was compared to the King
James Bible as a check for accuracy. He later translated the Old
320
Testament from the King James Bible into Yoruba. The entire Bible was
released in the 1880s.
The quality of Crowthers translation was acknowledged even by
his critics and the Yoruba Bible has won universal approval by the
Yoruba themselves for communicating the message of the Gospel and
starting a literary tradition and in effect initiating a renaissance of the
language. (Jacob F Ajayi, Henry Martyn Lecture).
His Bible translation was known as Bibeli Mimo. A revision was
released in 1886.
In 2008, the Bible League released a revision that they state is based
on Crowthers original work.
ZULU
(South Africa)
Missionaries turned Zulu into a written language for the purpose of
Bible translation. The first translator, Bishop Colenso, stated that the
experience led him to deny the inspiration of Scripture and to embrace
modernism.
In 1883, a Zulu Bible was released. The translation effort was led by
William C Wilcox. He began the project in 1845. At the time of the
release, very few Zulus could read.
The original edition of 1883 was at least primarily Traditional Text.
Subsequent revisions have introduced many Critical Text readings.
321
PART IV
Apologia
322
39
A PLEA FOR A PERFECT BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
The Bible controversy today is hotting up. The controversy
ironically involves the simple question of whether the Church today has a
perfect Bible. Fundamentalists today cannot agree on this very basic
question. The issue concerns the biblical doctrine of verbal plenary
preservation.
VPI and VPP

King James Version (KJV) fundamentalists who affirm the verbal
plenary inspiration (VPI) of the Bible, and believe in a perfect God who
has given His Church a perfect Hebrew and Greek Text underlying the
King James Bible are being labelled extreme and dangerous by nonKJV fundamentalists. Since when has believing in a perfectly inerrant
Bible in the original languages ever been considered such? Are 21st
century fundamentalists recanting their belief in verbal and plenary
inspiration that their 20th century forebears fought so hard to define and
defend against the modernists? These Neo-fundamentalists are saying:
We had a perfect Bible then, but we do not have a perfect Bible now! The
danger in fundamentalism today is the failure among fundamentalists to
affirm the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) of the Scriptures.
Apparent Discrepancies or Scribal Errors?

Anti-VPP fundamentalists would deny that Gods people today have
the perfect Word of God. According to them our Bible today contains
scribal errors. However, such errors are so insignificant that they do not
affect the spiritual truths taught in the Scriptures. This sounds rather neoevangelical, doesnt it? Anti-VPP fundamentalists appear to be quite sure
that 2 Kings 8:26 (Ahaziah is 22 years old) and 2 Chron 22:2 (Ahaziah is
42 years old), and 2 Sam 8:4 (700 horsemen) and 1 Chron 18:4 (7000
horsemen) are true contradictions or errors. Although some might
concede that the reformers are quick to consider many of these
323
contradictions as merely apparent (which is my view for it is not

improbable to reconcile the apparent contradiction between 2 Kings 8:26
and 2 Chron 22:2 by explaining that prior to his official reign at the age
of 42, he might have co-reigned with his father at the age of 22, and as
for 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chron 18:4, it might be explained that one counted
them one-by-one, and the other group-by-group, and so both figures
could be correct), they prefer not to see them as apparent discrepancies
but scribal errors. If they are indeed scribal errors, surely there must be
manuscripts that reflect the correct reading. Surely God could not have
possibly allowed the corruption to be so devastating that not a single
manuscript would reflect the autographal reading.
Anti-VPP fundamentalists say they are able to correct the errors
found in our present Bible by a collation of various manuscripts. But
where are the manuscripts? Why did the Masoretesthe keepers of the
purity of the OT Scripturesrefuse to correct these scribal errors? Was
Jesus wrong when He said that the Hebrew Scriptures the Jews had at the
time when He was on earth, which were not the autographs, were word
perfect to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18)? Interestingly, the Biblia Hebraica
Stuttgartensia lists no variants. If this is the case (ie, there are no extant
manuscripts that reflect the correct reading), then they could be actual
and factual errors committed by the original inspired writers and not
necessarily scribal, could they not? Is this not a serious problem? Would
this not lead to a denial of VPI?
Anti-VPP fundamentalists ape the neo-evangelicals when they say
that it is of no consequence whether such discrepancies are simply scribal
errors or true factual errors since they are so minor; they deal with
numbers, names, dates, and places, and hence do not affect our salvation
since the gospel is not impaired by such errors. Is this correct thinking?
I submit that if they proceed with this line of thinking and of judging the
Bible, crying error, error, error here and there, they are no better than
the neo-evangelicals who say that our Bible is only inerrant in a limited
sense (see Discrepancies in Scripture, in The Battle for the Bible by
Harold Lindsell, 161-184).
The Autographa Not Lost

No one denies that scribal errors were committed during the work of
copying Scripture. But the question is: Did God allow any of His inspired
words in the autographs to be lost during this transmission process?
324
A Plea for a Perfect Bible
Although the Church does not have the autographs (the very first scripts)
today, she has the apographs (copies) which reflect the autographs.
Providentially speaking, the autographs were neither lost nor destroyed.
Was God careless in preserving His Scripture? Can He even allow
minor corruptions? 17th century theologianFrancis Turretinwrote,
It will not do to say that divine providence wished to keep it free from
serious corruptions, but not from minor. For besides the fact that this is
gratuitous, it cannot be held without injury, as if lacking in the necessary
things which are required for the full credibility of Scripture itself. Nor
can we readily believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and
every word to these inspired (theopneustois) men, would not take care of
their entire preservation. If men use the utmost care diligently to preserve
their words (especially if they are of any importance, as for example a
testament or contract) in order that it may not be corrupted, how much
more, must we suppose, would God take care of his word which he
intended as a testament and seal of his covenant with us, so that it might
not be corrupted. Turretin does not deny scribal errors in the copying
process but he says that even if some manuscripts could be corrupted,
yet all could not.
By faith, we believe in Gods promise that He will allow none of
His words to be lost. Ps 12:6-7 says, The words of the LORD are pure
words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou
shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation
for ever. Jesus declared in Matt 24:35, Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall not pass away. In Matt 5:18. Jesus promised,
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Closest and Purest

There are some other fundamentalists who believe that the purity of
the Scriptures has been purely maintained, but not finally attained in the
Traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus
underlying the KJV. The Dean Burgon Society statement which declares
that the Texts which are the closest to the original autographs of the
Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament,
and the Traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the
King James Version. They take the word closest to mean that the
325
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that underlie the KJV are not completely
inerrant since they contain so-called scribal mistakes.
It must be clarified that the word closest in the Dean Burgon
Society statement does not at all mean that we have an errant text or that
the text is not the same as the original writings. The Dean Burgon Society
statement must be understood in the context (ie, the battle against
Westcott and Hort) in which the statement was phrased. Westcott and
Hort had puffed up their cut-up Greek text as being closest to the original
since they based it on the 4th century Alexandrian manuscripts, which
Dean Burgon had dismissed as most corrupt. The term closest seeks
to correct and counteract Westcott and Horts view on the identity of the
true text. The term closest also distinguishes between the autographa
(past and lost) and the apographa (present and existing). VPP
fundamentalists do not deny that the autographa and apographa though
distinct are the same. The paper may be different, but the contents are the
same.
The word closest should be interpreted to mean purest. Dr D A
Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, likewise understands the
statement to mean that the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic
Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible are the very words
which God has preserved down through the centuries, being the exact
words of the originals themselves. This declaration is entirely consistent
with the fundamental doctrines of VPI and VPP.
Such a high view of Scripture grants believers maximum certainty
with regard to the authenticity of the inspired words of Scripture. And
such certainty can only be had if the doctrine of the special providential
preservation of the Scriptures is upheld. Dr E F Hills wrote, if we
believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures we
obtain maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain,
all the certainty that we need. For we are led by the logic of faith to the
Masoretic Hebrew text, to the New Testament Textus Receptus, and to the
King James Version.
Does the Lord want His people to be certain about His inspired
words? Listen to what the Lord says, Have not I written to thee excellent
things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the
certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of
truth to them that send unto thee? (Prov 22:20-21). Be sure of this: God
326
wants us to have certainty concerning His words, and we can be certain

of Gods words only if we apply the logic of faith consistently.
Which Textus Receptus?

If there exists a perfect TR, then which of the many editions of the
TR is perfect? It must be affirmed that all the editions of the TR being
from the pure stream of Gods preserved text are pure, no doubt about it.
But which is the purest? It is the TR underlying the KJV. Dr Hills takes
the same view concerning the KJV and TR. Hear Dr Hills himself, The
texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided.
They were set up under the leading of Gods special providence. Hence
the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. But what
do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the Textus
Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The
answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith.
Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than
any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His
approval, namely, the King James Version, or more precisely, the Greek
text underlying the King James Version.
Like Dr Hills, we believe that all the TR editions are pure, but there
is one that is purestthe one underlying the KJV. Dr Hills said that the
King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of
the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus
Receptus. Is not the Greek Text underlying the KJV the Textus
Receptus? Whose TR? Not completely Erasmuss, Stephens, or Bezas, it
is a new edition of the TR which reflects the textual decisions of the KJV
translators as they prayerfully studied and compared the preserved
manuscripts. According to the Trinitarian Bible Society, The editions of
Beza, particularly that of 1598, and the two last editions of Stephens,
were the chief sources used for the English Authorised Version of 1611.
The present edition of the Textus Receptus underlying the English
Authorised Version of 1611 follows the text of Bezas 1598 edition as the
primary authority, and corresponds with The New Testament in the
Original Greek according to the text followed in the Authorised Version,
edited by F H A Scrivener.
327
Special Providence Not Static But Dynamic

It ought to be noted that Gods providential preservation of His
Scripture is not static but dynamic. The deistic heresy that God inspired
His Word but did nothing to preserve it must be rejected. Dr Timothy
Tow rightly said, If Deism teaches a Creator who goes to sleep after
creating the world is absurd, to hold to the doctrine of inspiration without
preservation is equally illogical inspiration and preservation are linked
one to another. Without preservation, all the inspiration, God-breathing
into the Scriptures, would be lost. But we have a Bible so pure and
powerful in every word and it is so because God has preserved it down
through the ages.
I believe God providentially guided the KJV translators to produce
the purest TR of all. The earlier editions were individual efforts, but the
TR underlying the KJV is a corporate effort of 57 of the most outstanding
biblical-theological, and more importantly, Bible-believing scholars of
their day. And as the Scripture says, in a multitude of counsellors there
is safety (Prov 11:14). The KJV translators had all the various editions
of the TR to refer to, and they made their decisions with the help of the
Holy Spirit. I believe the Lord providentially guided the King James
translators to make the right textual decisions. As such, I do not believe
we need to improve on the TR underlying the KJV. No one should play
textual critic, and be a judge of Gods Word today. God is His own
Textual Critic. I accept Gods special providential work in history during
the great 16th Century Protestant Reformation.
Why the TR Underlying the KJV?

Now the question remains: Why the TR underlying the KJV and not
Luthers German Bible, or the Spanish Reina Valera, or the Polish Biblia
Gdanska, or the French Martin Bible, or some other language Bible?
Now we do not deny there are faithful and reliable versions that are
accurately translated and based on the TR, nor do we discount the need
for foreign language Bibles, but here is Dr Hillss reply to the question:
God in His providence has abundantly justified this confidence of the
King James translators. The course of history has made English a worldwide language which is now the native tongue of at least 300 million
people and the second language of many millions more. For this reason
the King James Version is known the world over and is more widely read
than any other translation of the holy Scriptures. Not only so, but the
328
King James Version has been used by many missionaries as a basis and
guide for their own translation work and in this way has extended its
influence even to converts who know no English. For more than 350
years therefore the reverent diction of the King James Version has been
used by the Holy Spirit to bring the Word of life to millions upon millions
of perishing souls. Surely this is a God-guided translation on which God,
working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval. This is in
keeping with Jesus words, Even so every good tree bringeth forth good
fruit Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (Matt 7:17-20).
I believe the purity of Gods Word has been faithfully maintained
throughout the whole transmission of the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/
Received Text, and is fully represented in the Apographa of the Hebrew
Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for
the New Testament underlying the KJV. So I agree with David W Cloud,
in his paper quoting E F Hills, that the KJV is accurate in all textual
matters, and if there is a difference between a KJV reading and any
certain edition of the Received Text, we follow the KJV (ie, the TR
underlying the KJV). I also agree with Dr Hills who warned, We must
be very cautious therefore about finding errors in the text of the King
James Version, and the same holds true also in the realm of translation.
Whenever the renderings of the King James Version are called in
question, it is usually the accuser that finds himself in the wrong.
A Virtual Photocopy
As regards the Traditional Hebrew and Greek Scripture underlying
the KJV being a virtual photocopy of the original, G I Williamson did
write to this effect in his commentary on the Westminster Confession
concerning preservation, This brings us to the matter of Gods singular
care and providence by which He has kept pure in all ages this original
text, so that we now actually possess it in authentical form. And let us
begin by giving an illustration from modern life to show that an original
document may be destroyed, without the text of that document being lost.
Suppose you were to write a will. Then suppose you were to have a
photographic copy of that will made. If the original were then destroyed,
the photographic copy would still preserve the text of that will exactly the
same as the original itself. The text of the copy would differ in no way
whatever from the original, and so it would possess exactly the same
truth and meaning as the original. Now of course photography was not
329
invented until long after the original copy had been worn out or lost.
How then could the original text of the Word of God be preserved? The
answer is that God preserved it by His own remarkable care and
providence.
Concerning what the Westminster theologians meant when they
declared that the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT being immediately
inspired of God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all
ages, are therefore authentical, we have another commentary from Prof
William F Orr of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary who wrote, this
affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the
New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately
unknown to the authors of the Confession of Faith.
Biblical Basis
So does the Church have a perfect Hebrew and Greek Bible today?
Yes, indeed she does. Based on what? Based on Gods promise that He
would preserve every one of His words to the jot and tittle (Exod 32:1519, 34:1-4; Pss 12:6-7, 78:1-8, 105:8; 119:89,111,152,160; Prov 22:2021; Eccl 3:14; Jer 36:30-32; Matt 4:4, 5:18, 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke
21:33; John 10:35; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Rev 22:18-19).
Some may say that this belief on biblical preservation is a result of
circular reasoning. Indeed it is. On what basis does the Church believe
in VPI? Is it not on the testimony of the Bible itself (2 Tim 3:16, Matt
5:18)? God says it, I believe it, that settles it. Circular reasoning or a
priori reasoning is not illegitimate. It is fallacious only when the premise
to begin with is false. If I reason, I am perfect because I say I am, it is
fallacious because the presupposition is utterly untrue (Rom 3:4-23). If
God says of Himself, I am perfect because I say I am, that is absolutely
true. Why do we believe God has preserved His Word and words
perfectly? It is simply because God has promised to do just that in the
Scriptures cited above. We simply take God at His Word because God
cannot lie (Num 23:19).
Do we know everything that went on in the transmission of the text?
No, we do not. But God knows; He knows everything and we believe He
knows what He is doing. For instance, we were not there when God
330
created the world. We did not see His work with our own eyes. When
Science contradicts what the Bible says concerning origins, who are we
going to believe? Science or the Bible? We believe the Bible. Heb 11:3
says, Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things
which do appear. Faithfulness to God and His Word demands that a
Christian believe in a perfect God who has given His Church a perfect
Bible. Biblical epistemology is not seeing is believing, but believing is
seeing.
Canonisation and Preservation

Is there a historical precedent that tells us that Gods providential
work can involve a closure, a terminus? The answer is yes. All the
inspired NT books were completed by AD 100 when the Apostle John
wrote the last book of Revelation, and God warned against adding to or
subtracting from His Word in Rev 22:18-19. However, we know that in
the first few centuries, there were uninspired men who penned spurious
gospels and epistles, and passed them off as Scripture. Some of these
were the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Epistle of
Barnabas, etc. Nevertheless, none of the inspired books of Scripture have
been lost or obscured in the canonical process. By the providential
guidance of the Holy Spirit, Gods people were led to identify the 27
books to become our NT Canon, no more, no less. There was a terminus
to the canonisation of Scripture at the Council of Carthage in 397.
In like manner, the Lord allowed copyist errors and corruptions to
enter into the transmission process through the pen of fallible scribes.
Nevertheless, His providential hand kept His inspired words of Scripture
from being lost. In light of Gods providence, that nothing happens by
chance, and that history is under His sovereign control, I believe that in
the fulness of timein the most opportune time of the Reformation when
the true church separated from the false, when the study of the original
languages was emphasised, and the printing press invented (which meant
that no longer would there be any need to handcopy the Scriptures
thereby ensuring a uniform text)God restored from out of a pure stream
of preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, the purest Hebrew and
Greek Text of allthe Text that underlies our KJVthat accurately
reflects the original Scriptures.
331
That the providential preservation of Scripture sees its historical

parallel in the providential canonisation of Scripture was Dean Burgons
thinking as well. Dr Hills wrote of Burgon: Burgon never lost sight
of the special providence of God which has presided over the
transmission of the New Testament down through the ages, expressly set
out to maintain against all opponents that the Church was divinely guided
to reject the false readings of the early centuries, and to gradually accept
the true text. He denied that he was claiming a perpetual miracle that
would keep manuscripts from being depraved at various times, and in
various places. But The Church in her collective capacity, has
neverthelessas a matter of factbeen perpetually purging herself of
those shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded with
her pale (The Revision Revised, 334-5). He believed that just as God
gradually settled the Canon of the New Testament by weaning His
churches from non-canonical books, so He did with the Text also.
A Perfect Bible Today!

What kind of Bible do fundamentalists have? Do they have a perfect
Bible? The VPP fundamentalist would say yes, but the anti-VPP would
say no. Make no mistake about it, both claim to believe in VPI, but
despite this, anti-VPP fundamentalists say they do not have a perfect
Bible. Is this biblical? Is this logical? Is this safe? Anti-VPP
fundamentalists say that Gods preservation of His Bible is imperfect.
They say God did not preserve His words, only His doctrines; it is
conceptual, not verbal preservation. What? Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, and
Matt 24:35 tell us explicitly that God will preserve His pure words, and
every jot and tittle of His words. Did not the Lord convey His
doctrines through words? Without the words, where the doctrines?
Dr Hills sounded a pertinent warning, Conservative scholars ... say
that they believe in the special, providential preservation of the New
Testament text. Most of them really dont though, because, as soon as
they say this, they immediately reduce this special providential
preservation to the vanishing point in order to make room for the
naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort. As we have seen, some say that
the providential preservation of the New Testament means merely that the
same substance of doctrine is found in all the New Testament
documents. Others say that it means that the true reading is always
present in at least one of the thousands of extant New Testament
332
WHAT KIND OF BIBLE DO YOU HAVE?

The Perfection of the Bible: Three Views
NOT PERFECT
Not Perfect Then & Now
NOT SO PERFECT
Perfect Then Not Now
ALL PERFECT
Perfect Then & Now
THEOLOGICAL
SC H O O L
Liberalism /M odernism ,
Neo-orthodoxy
Neo-ev angelicalism ,
Neo-fundam entalism
Biblical & Reform ed

Fundam entalism
DESCRIPTION
OF THE BIBLE
Bible is not or becomes

the Word of God
Bible contains the Word of

God
Bible is the Word of God
Hum an or Non-m iraculous

inspiration
Div ine inspiration only in

Autographs
Div ine inspiration in

Autographs & faithful
Apographs
Denies preserv ation of

w ords / Affirm s
preserv ation of doctrines
Affirm s preserv ation of

both w ords & doctrines to
the jot & tittle (VPP; WCF
1.8, M att 5:18)
VIEW ON
BIBLICAL
INSPIRATION
VIEW ON
Denies preserv ation of
BIBLICAL
w ords & doctrines
PRESERVATION
AUTHORITY
Science plus Bible
Bible Alone (Sola Scriptura)
EPISTEMOLOGY Intellect not Faith is

suprem e (See to believ e)
Faith subjected m ore to

the Intellect than to the
Bible (See to believ e)
Faith and Intellect totally

subjected to the Bible
(Believ e to see)
VIEW OF
Denies both infallibility &
BIBLICAL
inerrancy
INFALLIBILITY &
INERRANCY
Denies inerrancy / Affirm s

infallibility (ie, lim ited
inerrancy )
Affirm s both infallibility &

inerrancy to the jot and
tittle (VPI)
ARE THERE
MISTAKES /
ER R O R S
IN THE BIBLE?
Full of m istakes, w ith all

kinds of factual
discrepancies & actual
contradictions
No m istakes only in
No m istakes or errors at
spiritual m atters but not in all, and any discrepancy is
science, history, geography only apparent
w here discrepancies are
actual or factual errors
CHOICE OF
ORIGINAL
GREEK TEXT
Westcott-Hort M inority &

Critical Text Only
Westcott-Hort M inority &

Critical Text is Superior
Textus Receptus
(Receiv ed Text) Only
POSITION ON
BIBLE
VERSIONS
Only Liberal, Ecum enical,

Rom an Catholic, Fem inist
v ersions acceptable
All v ersions acceptable

w hether corrupt or not
Only KJV acceptable since

it is the best (m ost
accurate, faithful & reliable)
RSV, NRSV, TEV/GNB,

TNIV
NIV, NASB, NKJV, ESV
KJV Only
TRANSLATION
METHOD
Dy nam ic Equiv alence

(Contextualisation)
Dy nam ic Equiv alence

(Thought for Thought)
Form al Equiv alence

(Word for Word)
PROPONENTS
M etzger, Aland, Nida,

M artini, Wikgren, UBS,
WCC, SBL
Lew is, White, Kutilek,

Carson, Wallace, Price,
Hudson, IBS, NAE, ETS,
BJU, CBTS
Burgon, Hills, Otis Fuller,

Waite, Cloud, Paisley,
M orris, PCC, TBS, DBS,
M cIntire, ICCC, BPC,
FEBC
CHOICE OF
BIBLE
VERSIONS
Science Alone
333
manuscripts. And still other scholars say that to them the special,
providential preservation of the Scriptures means that the true New
Testament text was providentially discovered in the mid-19th century by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort after having been lost for
1,500 years.
If you adopt one of these false views of the providential
preservation of Scriptures, then you are logically on your way toward the
denial of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. For if God has
preserved the Scriptures so carelessly, why would he have infallibly
inspired them in the first place? It is not sufficient therefore merely to say
that you believe in the doctrine of the special, providential preservation
of holy Scriptures. You must really believe this doctrine and allow it to
guide your thinking. You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and
proceed according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the
Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version, in
other words, to the common faith.
God forbid that we should ever make this anti-biblical statement:
The Bible contains mistakes and errors but they are so small and so
minor they should not cause us any worry. If the Bible contains error, no
matter how small or minor, I worry! For whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all (Jas 2:10). If a person
says he believes in a perfect Bible, and yet denies just one verse, yea
even a jot or tittle, he is guilty of denying all of the Bible. Jesus warned,
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it
were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that
he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt 18:6).
I believe in a perfect God who has given us a perfect Bible. Yea, let
God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4)! Since God said it, that
settles it, and my duty is simply to believe it! This kind of faith ought to
be instilled in every Christian. We need to cleave on to the very words of
God and never doubt the veracity of His words! No one has all the
answers. God has all the answers, and sometimes He allows false
prophets (like Westcott and Hort with their Accursed Text), and false
doctrines (like limited inerrancy and imperfect preservation) to come into
the scene in order to test whether we love Him or not (Deut 13:3, Ps
139:21-22). Would we doubt or question Him, or would we trust and
obey His every word no matter what man may say? Man shall not live
334
by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of
God (Matt 4:4).
Instead of the rationalistic approach that begins with the opinions of
man and then work backwards to the truth of God, which confuses it, we
ought to take the faith approach. That is why Hills warned that if we do
not really apply the logic of faith consistently and allow it to reach its
logical conclusion, we would end up ultimately denying the very Word of
God itself. It is thus no surprise that anti-VPP fundamentalists are
prepared to call what are apparent contradictions in the Bible errors. In
denying VPP they effectively deny VPI as well. They are not able to say
they have a perfect Bible.
Can we afford to believe in a Bible that is less than perfect? If God
is incapable of giving us a perfect Bible, what makes us so sure that He is
capable of preserving our salvation to the very end? We are thrown into
all kinds of doubts. If we doubt our Bible, we might as well doubt our
salvation (cf 1 Cor 15:14-19). If we as biblical fundamentalists are
unwilling to affirm that we have a perfectly flawless Bible today,
something is seriously wrong somewhere! Absolute and unquestioning
faith in Gods infallible and inerrant Word is the only solution! The law
of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul (Ps 19:7).
Affirmation of VPI and VPP

It is absolutely vital for those who love God and His Word to affirm
the twin doctrines of VPI and VPP. Here is a summary statement of my
faith in a perfectly inspired and preserved Bible today:
(1) I do affirm the biblical doctrine of providential preservation that the
inspired words of the Hebrew OT Scriptures and the Greek NT
Scriptures are kept pure in all ages as taught in the Westminster
Confession.
(2) I do believe that the Texts which are closest (ie, purest) to the
original autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic
Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, and the Traditional Greek Text
for the New Testament underlying the King James Version.
(3) I believe that the purity of Gods words has been faithfully
maintained in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/Received Text,
and fully represented in the Textus Receptus that underlies the KJV.
Providential preservation is not static but dynamic.
335
(4) I do believe that Gods providential preservation of the Scriptures

concerns not just the doctrines but also the very words of Scripture
to the last jot and tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31,
Luke 21:33, Rev 22:18-19).
(5) I do not deny that other faithful Bible translations, including foreign
language ones, that are based on other editions of the Textus
Receptus can be deemed the Word of God.
(6) I do believe in the verbal plenary inspiration and total inerrancy of
Scripture. I do not believe there are any scribal errors in our present
Bible, and any alleged errors are only apparent and not errors at all.
(7) I do not believe we need to improve on the TR underlying the KJV. I
do not want to play textual critic, and be a judge of Gods Word. I
accept Gods special hand in His providential work of perfect Bible
preservation during the Reformation.
336
40
MY REPLY TO JAMES D PRICES REVIEW OF
A PLEA FOR A PERFECT BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
Preamble
Dr James D Price of Temple Baptist Seminary has written a review
of my paper A Plea for a Perfect Bible as published in The Burning
Bush (January 2003, www.febc.edu.sg/burningbush.htm). His paper has
been disseminated via email by anti-preservationist advocates in
Singapore who hail him as one of their champions. Knowing the antiKJV-only and pro-Westcott-Hort inclination of Price, it is only expected
of him to be biased against my paper in defense of the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures underlying the KJV.
Price is Not for the KJV-Alone Stance of ___ Church

I am quite sure that Price would criticize the ___ Church Statement
of Reconciliation of January 5, 2003that the KJV is the very word of
God, and fully reliable, ... And thus we should continue to exclusively use
the KJV for all ministries of the church and for our members use, and
refrain from all Modern English versions, like the RSV, NASV and NIV.
One of the many deficiencies of these Modern English versions is that
they are based on the corrupted Westcott and Hort Greek and Hebrew
Text; whilst the KJV is based on the uncorrupted family of the Greek
Received Text and the Masoretic Hebrew Text.
Price does not believe that the KJV is as reliable as we think. This
can only be expected of him because he is one of the translators of the
NKJVa version that seeks to discourage the use of the old KJV.
Neither does Price consider the Textus Receptus to be a superior text. He
is sympathetic to Westcott and Hort and their method of textual criticism.
Price Undermines the KJV as the Very Word of God

Price is quite adept at confusing and undermining peoples
confidence on the KJV. He has a list of grammatical, spelling,
337
capitalization, and printing mistakes in the KJV. Price is conceited

enough to think his command of the English language is superior to that
of the King James translators. He wants to correct the Kings English of
the KJV. It is like a kindergarten pupil trying to correct the university
professor. David Marshall who had for his English textbook the King
James Bible would have dismissed Prices puerile criticism of the English
of the KJV. The KJV was written in an age when the English language
was at its zenith. Since then, the standard of English has deteriorated, and
Prices English is no better.
Price, like most anti-KJVists, is quick to criticise the KJV for its
mistakes. A favorite example is Matt 23:24, Ye blind guides, which
strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Some call strain at a gnat a
translation or a grammatical mistake, saying that it should be strain out a
gnat and not strain at a gnat. Price calls it a misprint or typographical
error. I believe it is neither a translational error nor a typographical error.
Even the New Oxford English dictionary does not see strain at to be a
mistake, but an archaic usage. Thus, to strain out a gnat is correct; to
strain at a gnat is also correct.
If strain at is indeed a legitimate translation, how then ought we to
understand it? Well, it depends on where the emphasis lies. Is the
emphasis on the verb (strain) or on the noun (gnat)? The King James
translators were astute to translate the Greek word diulizo (to strain,
to filter, to percolate) as to strain at. This is because the context
has to do with sight. Jesus ridiculed and rebuked the Pharisees calling
them blind guides. How blind were they? They were so sharp to spot a
tiny little gnat and quick to filter it out of their drink, but could not see a
huge camel on their plate and were prepared even to swallow it whole.
Thus to strain at could be taken to mean to strain at [the sight of] a
gnat. Now, the Chambers Dictionary confirms this: strain at in Matt.
xxiii. 24, to remove by straining, strain in the event of finding. Many
today like Price would have to strain at a gnat to fault the KJV, but
when it comes to the modern perversions, they would swallow a camel.
The other mistakes Price pointed out like archaic spellings and
capitalizations etc, are not mistakes. The King James translators
capitalize certain nouns and adjectives when these nouns and adjectives
refer to God. In certain places they do not because it could be due to their
uncertainty on how the noun/adjective is to be interpreted, or simply
because it was an oversight on their part (they were not infallible as
338
My Reply to James D Prices Review of A Plea for a Perfect Bible
proofreaders and translators). At times there is a need to return to the

Hebrew and Greek Scriptures for certainty and clarity. Dr E F Hills has
this wise advice, We must be very cautious therefore about finding
errors in the text of the King James Version, and the same holds true also
in the realm of translation. Whenever the renderings of the King James
Version are called in question, it is usually the accuser that finds himself
in the wrong.
Price Misrepresents My Paper and Confuses the Issue

Now, let me rebut a couple of misleading statements by Price. Price
wrote, Historically, fundamentalists have understood that God preserved
the text (words) of Scripture through the hand-written copies of the
Hebrew and Greek Bibles that have survived through historythat is, the
preserved ancient Bibles (manuscripts). Price misleads. No
fundamentalist, neo-evangelical or modernist would object to such a
general statement of Scripture preservation as offered by Price. Prices
statement is too broad and ambiguous for it to be definitive.
What distinguishes historic and reformed fundamentalists from neoevangelicals and neo-fundamentalists is this: historic and reformed
fundamentalists believe that the Scriptures are preserved in the
Byzantine/Majority/Received Text which is the source text of the KJV
and all the Reformation Bibles, while neo-evangelicals and neofundamentalists believe they are preserved in the Alexandrian/Minority/
Westcott-Hort Text, the root of all the modern perversions of the Bible.
Price says I misrepresent historic fundamentalism because it never
held to the KJV as the best and only English Bible fundamentalists
should use. But the following fundamentalists would disagree with Price:
(1) Regular Baptist, Dr Robert Gromacki of Cedarville College, in his
New Testament Survey textbook, affirmed the KJV as the text of
fundamentalism (New Testament Survey, xii). (2) Dr Ian Paisley, a Free
Presbyterian and prominent leader of the World Congress of
Fundamentalism, upholds the KJV alone. Without mincing his words, he
wrote, I believe this Authorized Version is unsurpassably pre-eminent
over and above all other English translations, ... I cry out There is none
like that, give it me, and in so doing I nail the Satanic lie that the
Authorized Version is outdated, outmoded, mistranslated, a relic of the
past and only defended by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists. ... I
believe this Book will always be the unsurpassable pre-eminent English
339
version of the Holy Bible and no other can ever take its place. To seek to
dislodge this Book from its rightful pre-eminent place is the act of the
enemy, and what is attempted to put in its place is an intruder - an
imposter - a pretender - a usurper (My Plea for the Old Sword, 10-11).
(3) In similar fashion, Dr Carl McIntire and the International Council of
Christian Churches (ICCC) in two recent World Congresses, in
Amsterdam 1998 and in Jerusalem 2000, affirmed the exclusive KJV and
TR stance of historic fundamentalism.
When Price fails to understand or answer my arguments, he
conveniently distorts my position on divine inspiration and preservation
and my view on the KJV/TR. He wrote, The bottom line ... is a blind
commitment to the theory that the English words of the King James
Version are the divinely inspired, divinely preserved Word of God,
regardless of any Hebrew and Greek evidence to the contrary. It is neither
the Traditional Text, nor the Byzantine Text, nor the Majority Text, nor
any of the various editions of the Textus Receptus that is the final
authority, so why mention them? To Khoo, Cloud, and Hills, the final
authority in all matters of text and translation is the English King James
Version of 1769 in one of its various differing editions. The Textus
Receptus that underlies the English words of the KJV is a phantom text
that had no tangible existence prior to its being created after the fact in
the mid-nineteenth century, so why mention the others at all?
Why mention them? Why mention the Traditional Text? Why the
Byzantine Text? Why the Majority Text? Why the Textus Receptus? It is
precisely because I believe that the purity of Gods words has been
faithfully maintained in the Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/Received
Text, and fully represented in the Textus Receptus that underlies the
KJV (A Plea for a Perfect Bible, 13). Right at the very outset of my
Burning Bush paper, I had made it clear that I was talking about an
infallible and inerrant Hebrew and Greek Scriptures on which the KJV is
based, and not the KJV per se. There is no double inspiration and the
KJV is definitely not more inspired than the original language text.
Also, the text underlying the KJV is not a phantom text. If it is
indeed a phantom or intangible text, then what did the King James
translators use to translate their Bible? Perhaps, Price meant it is a
phantom text today. But how is it a phantom or intangible text
when it is in print, and used in our Greek classes? The Textus Receptus
underlying the KJV is essentially Bezas 1598 TR and the last 2 editions
340
of Stephens TR, and corresponds with Scriveners TR that is today

published by the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Dean Burgon Society.
Price disappoints with his careless and illogical analysis of my paper and
serious distortion and misrepresentation of my views.
Now, what is really a phantom text is Prices autographic text.
Where is this autographic text? Is it tangible? Who is the publisher?
Can Price produce it? I submit to you that Prices autographic text is
the intangible text.
Prices Fallacious Method in Solving Bible Difficulties

As regards my attempt at reconciling an apparent discrepancy in the
OT, viz, 2 Kgs 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2, Price was correct to point out the
difficulties of my suggested solution if we take Ahaziah to be the actual
son of Jehoram. Now, I must clarify that I am not saying that the coregency solution is the answer for this case; it is simply one way of
reconciling such apparent discrepancies. One possible reply to Price is
that Ahaziah might not have been the actual blood relative of Jehoram,
but a step-son, a son-in-law, or an adopted son, thus allowing Ahaziah to
be about the same age as Jehoram. Another possible solution is to look at
2 Kgs 8:26 as the actual age of Ahaziah when he became king, and 2
Chron 22:2 as the age of his dynasty when he became king.
My approach to biblical discrepancies is simple: Let God be true,
but every man a liar (Rom 3:4). In other words, the Bible must always
be right, and I am wrong. We offer possible solutions, but we do not say
This is exactly what happened. We do not have all knowledge, and we
do not know enough of history and the background of the times to offer a
definite solution. There are certain things we may not be able to solve or
understand this side of eternity. But one thing is for sure, such
discrepancies are only apparent; they are not mistakes or errors in the
Bible.
Now, Price offers a solution to the above discrepancy which I find
rather troubling. He says that 2 Chron 22:2 should read 22 instead of 42
even though every existing Hebrew manuscript reads 42 (note that Price
acknowledges that I was correct to observe this). Price solves the
discrepancy by using a non-inspired version/translation, namely, the
Septuagint (ie, a Greek version of the Hebrew OT) to correct the inspired
Hebrew Scriptures. Price says this is the scholarly way to solve a Bible
difficulty. This is no different from using the NIV or any of the modern
341
versions, or for that matter the KJV to correct the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures. By so doing, Price is in effect saying that the versions
(whether ancient or modern) are more inspired than the Hebrew and
Greek Scriptures. This is Ruckmanism, is it not?
Price Agrees with Me on VPP

Despite the many inaccurate and misleading arguments, and
misrepresentations of my views on the TR and KJV by Price, I am glad to
note that he at least agrees with me that the Holy Scriptures are verballyplenarily inspired (VPI) and verbally-plenarily preserved (VPP). Price
also agrees with me that God did give us a perfect Bible, and has
preserved its text. He says that his perfect Bible is in the autographic
textthe autographic text is the exact, perfectly pure, absolutely
certain, divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, with no room
for doubt. Now this is a fine statement of faith on the perfection of the
Bible. But I would like to know this: What and where is the autographic
text? What does he mean by the autographic text? Is this autographic
text the same as the Autographs? Or are they copies of the Autographs? If
they are the Autographs, then where are the Autographs? Is it not true that
the Autographs are no longer in existence? Are not the Autographs
therefore the phantom or intangible text? If by autographic text is
meant the copies of the Autographs, then are they not in fact
apographs? And if they are indeed apographs, why am I faulted when
I say that all the inspired words are fully represented in the Hebrew and
Greek apographs underlying the KJV? Perhaps the difference between
Price and me is that Price sees the autographic text as not just the
Hebrew and Greek apographs underlying the KJV but also NIV, NASB,
RSV, etc, and that the corrupt apographs underlying the modern versions
(ie, the Westcott and Hort Text) could be superior to the preserved
apographs of the KJV.
342
41
NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV
QUESTIONS
Jeffrey Khoo
Preamble
Gary Hudson had a set of questions published in the internet against
the King James Bible (http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/questkjv.htm).
His questionnaire entitled, Questions for the KJV-Only Cult, was
actually directed at Ruckmanites. Unfortunately, Hudson did not care to
clarify that the majority of KJV advocates are not of the Ruckmanite
origin or stripe. Many readers do go away confused, thinking that all
defenders of the King James Bible are Ruckmanites and heretics.
Such misinformation and misrepresentations continue unabated today by
the writings of Doug Kutilek and James D Price and those of their ilk.
It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders like
Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David Cloud,
Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and
the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT espouse at all the beliefs of
Ruckman that:
(1) the KJV is doubly inspired;
(2) the KJV is advanced revelation;
(3) the English KJV is as or more inspired than the original
language Scriptures;
(4) the KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;
(5) there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek due to an inspired English translation;
(6) the KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible
edited by D A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is
certainly an improvement on the KJV);
(7) the KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;
343
(8) those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and
(9) all non-English speaking believers must learn English to know
the Truth.
Nevertheless, Hudsons questions have created enough
misinformation on and misrepresentation of the King James Bible and the
majority of its advocates that a response is necessary. Below are
Hudsons questions followed by my answers from a KJV-superiority
perspective.
Answers to Questions
(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless Bible translation in
order to call it the word of God? If so, how do we know it is
perfect? If not, why do some limit the word of God to only one 17th
Century English translation? Where was the word of God prior to
1611?
We believe that the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of
the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two
Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no
equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did
such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold
up the Authorised Version and say This is the Word of God! while at the
same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the
underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare
Scripture with Scripture. (The Dean Burgon Society, Articles of Faith,
section II.A.)
Every Bible translation can be legitimately called the Word of
God if it is true and faithful to the original and traditional text. We
refuse to consider heretical Bibles like the New World Translation of the
Jehovahs Witnesses as the Word of God. We also reject as unreliable
all Bible versions (eg NIV, TEV, TLB, CEV ) that are a result of the
dynamic equivalence method of translation, and those (eg RSV, NASB,
ESV ) that cast doubt and/or omit verses based on corrupted readings
of the Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort Text, and consider them unsafe for
use.
Where was the Word of God prior to 1611? Well, the Word of God
is found in the divinely inspired and perfectly preserved Traditional Text
344
Non-Ruckmanite Answers to Anti-KJV Questions
of Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures used and recognised by

the Church down through the ages, and in all the faithful and reliable
translations that were based on those Texts, viz, Martin Luthers German
Bible (1522), William Tyndales Bible (1525), Myles Coverdales Bible
(1535), The Matthews Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539-41), and The
Geneva Bible (1557-60).
It is significant to note that prior to the KJV, the English translations
were largely individual efforts. The KJV on the other hand is a corporate
work. In the words of the translators, the KJV was not produced to make
a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good
ones one principal good one. For this purpose and with such devotion
the KJV translation committee was formed, and they were careful to
assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and
yet many, lest many things haply might escape them.
The King James Bible is a product of the 16th Century Protestant
Reformation. The special providential hand of God was clearly at work at
the time of the Reformation not only in the separation of the true church
from the false church, but also in the invention of the printing press, the
renewed interest in the study of the original languages, the identification
of the purest Greek Text (Textus Receptus) which became the source text
for the KJV. These products of the Protestant Reformation bear the divine
imprimatur.
God holds His people in every age responsible for using the divinely
inspired and preserved original texts and only the faithful and accurate
translations of His Word. The KJV-superiority position does not limit the
Word of God to only one 17th Century English Translation, but advocates
that the KJV, being still the most accurate English translation based on
the purest texts, should be the only Bible used by English-speaking
Christians today. To use other Bibles when the best is clearly available
would be to neglect our responsibility.
(2) Were the KJV translators liars for saying that the
meanest translation is still the word of God?
The 1611 Preface of the KJV is often used by anti-KJVists to
support the corrupt modern versions. They argue that in that Preface the
KJV translators themselves viewed even the worst English versions as
the Word of God. Did the KJV translators really say that every translation
of the Bible even if filled with grammatical, translational, or doctrinal
345
errors could be rightly called the Word of God? They certainly did not.
The context in which they wrote those words clearly reveals this: Now
to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow,
that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men
of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as
yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the Kings
speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French,
Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the Kings speech, though it be not
interpreted by every translator with the like grace.
It is clear that by the word meanest they do not mean worst (ie
evil in the highest degree). Who would dare mistranslate the kings
speech? Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By
meanest they meant poor in literary grace. When beginning Greek
students translate their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and
wooden; but if literal and precise, it is the Word of God. The KJV
translators, some of whom were Puritans, certainly did not humour
wicked or corrupt versions. It is utterly ridiculous and absurd to suggest
that they did.
The KJV translators were certainly not liars, but anti-KJVists
have put words into their mouths to make them mean what they did not
mean by meanest in a mean attempt to demean the pro-KJV position.
(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV
are the word of God?
Yes, we believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal
Plenary Preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages, their
consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God,
the Supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:2021; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35). We believe the Hebrew Old Testament
and the Greek New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James)
Version to be the very Word of God, infallible and inerrant.
(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the
KJV can correct the English?
Yes, we believe that the inspired, infallible and inerrant Hebrew and
Greek words underlying the KJV can correct the mistranslations of the
modern English Bibles which use the corrupt Westcott-Hort Text, and use
the dynamic equivalence method of translation.
346
We do not believe that the King James translators have been at all
careless in their translation of their Bible, but do recognise that when
interpreting difficult verses, we need to consult the underlying Hebrew
and Greek texts in order to shed light on the full or complete meaning of
a word, verse or passage. We affirm with the Dean Burgon Society that
the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English Bible is a
true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially
preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and Traditional
Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no equal among
all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in
their translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorised
Version of 1611 and say This is the Word of God! while at the same
time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying
original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture
with Scripture. (The Dean Burgon Society, Articles of Faith, section
II.A).
(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV corrects its
own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
No, we do not believe that the English of the KJV corrects its own
Hebrew and Greek Text. How can it do so, since it is derived from its
very own original language text? The original Scriptures in Hebrew and
Greek can and should never be corrected by any translation whether
English, Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, or any other language. We
categorically reject Ruckmans heretical view that the English KJV is
more inspired than the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that
underlie it.
(6) Is any translation inspired? Is the KJV an inspired
translation?
God inspired or breathed out (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16) His
words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Strictly speaking, the divinely
inspired words were the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God gave to
His Prophets and Apostles to pen the Holy Scriptures.
What is the relation between the inspired text and its derived
translation? By way of illustration, the original language Scripture
underlying the KJV is like the perfect platinum yardstick of the
Smithsonian Institute, infallible, inerrant, authoritative. The KJV and
other accurate and reliable translations are like the common yardstick,
347
though not 100% are good and safe enough for use. Although there may
be a need to consult the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts especially
when interpreting difficult verses, we do not believe that the King James
translators were in any way careless in translating their Bible. The same
however cannot be said of the modern versionsthey are definitely
shorter by many inches and far too unreliable.
(7) Is the KJV scripture? Is it given by inspiration of God
(2 Tim 3:16)?
The KJV as a translation was not given by inspiration of God.
All Scripture (pasa graphe) of 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the original
Hebrew, Aramaic Old Testament and Greek New Testament words that
God had breathed out without any error or mistake. These divinely
inspired words in the original languages are infallible and inerrant and
cannot be corrected, improved upon or changed in any way.
The English words of the KJV are translated words. But since the
English words in the KJV are so accurately and faithfully translated from
the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words, we can confidently
declare the KJV to be the Word of God, and Holy Scripture, and thus
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16-17).
(8) When was the KJV given by inspiration of God?1611
or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644,
1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
The KJV was first published in 1611. However, there were revisions
that followed soon after; all of which were completed by 1629. The
revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1638 were due to printing
errors. The KJV translators themselves, namely, Samuel Ward and John
Bois, corrected these errors. In the course of typesetting, the printers had
inadvertently left out words or phrases; all such manifest typographical
errors had been corrected. For example, Psalm 69:32 of the 1611 edition
read good instead of God. This was clearly a printers error, and was
corrected in 1617.
Apart from a slight revision in 1638, there followed several
facetious attempts to revise the KJV between 1638-1762 but none were
successful.
348
The final revision of the KJV was done between 1762 and 1769.
The 1762 revision had to do with spelling. For example, old forms that
had an e after verbs, and u instead of v, and f for s were all
standardised to conform to modern spelling. For example, feare is
fear, mooued is moved, and euill is evil, and alfo, is also.
All these Gothic and German spelling peculiarities have been Romanised.
1769 saw an updating of weights, measures, and coins. This 1769 edition
of the KJV is the one popularly in print today. It is important to note that
the 1769 edition is essentially the same as the 1611.
1850? Is this Hudsons typo? There was an 1805 (not 50) edition
which accidentally printed a proofreaders note to remain in the text of
Galatians 4:29 that made the verse to read him that was born after the
Spirit to remain . The only significant revision in the 1800s was in
1873 when Scrivener worked on the KJVs marginal notes, orthography,
and cross references.
There are not two or more KJVs but only one, and the one that is
used today is basically the 1769 edition.
(9) In what language did Jesus Christ (not Peter Ruckman and
others) teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever
according to Matthew 5:18?
Jesus taught that the Old Testament would be preserved forever in
the Hebrew language. This preservation must logically apply to the New
Testament as well which was written in Greek. The jot and tittle of the
divinely inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words were the words
Jesus promised would be preserved for all time in Matthew 5:18.
(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve
His Word in the form of one 17th Century English translation?
Nowhere specifically. Nevertheless, it must be said that the Bible
does teach explicitly that God will preserve perfectly His divinely
inspired words in the original languages as promised in Psalm 12:6-7,
Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35 and many other passages. By the logic of
faith we identify the perfect Word of God to be the inspired and
preserved Hebrew and Aramaic words of the Masoretic Text and the
Greek words of the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV.
(11) Did God lose the words of the originals when the
autographs were destroyed?
349
Although we do not have the autographs (the very first scripts)

today, we have the apographs (copies) which reflect the autographs. All
the divinely inspired words of the autographs have been providentially
preserved in the apographs underlying the KJV. We affirm with the
Westminster divines that the autographs being immediately inspired by
God [are] by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages
(Westminster Confession of Faith, I:VIII).
Providentially speaking, the autographs were neither lost nor
destroyed. The purity of Gods Word has been faithfully maintained
throughout the whole transmission of the Byzantine/Majority/Received
Text, and finally attained in the apographs of the Hebrew Masoretic Text
for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New
Testament underlying the KJV.
By faith, we believe in Gods promise that He will allow none of
His words to be lost. Psalm 12:6-7 says, The words of the LORD are
pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this
generation for ever. Jesus declared in Matthew 24:35, Heaven and earth
shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. In Matthew 5:18,
Jesus promised, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled.
(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying
that their New Testament was translated out of the original Greek?
Were they liars for claiming to have the original Greek to
translate from?
No, they were not liars, because the term original Greek indeed
refers to the inspired and preserved Greek New Testament Text they had.
The term original only means that the New Testament was originally
written in Greek.
(13) Was the original Greek lost after 1611?
No, the original Greek continues to exist to this day, and we call it
the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.
(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take
place without the word of God?
350
Of course not! The Protestant Reformation arose because of the

Bible. Sola Scriptura (Scriptures Alone) was one of the Reformation
pillars. What were the pre-1611 Bibles that were the Word of God?
They were the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525), the
Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible
(1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the
Bishops Bible (1568), all of which facilitated the Reformation cause, and
were faithful precursors to the King James Bible.
(15) What translation of the word of God, used by the
Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant?
Every translation of the Word of God used by the Reformers that
was faithfully translated and based on the pure and preserved Old
Testament Masoretic Text and New Testament Received Text may rightly
be considered the Word of God, infallible and inerrant insofar as they
accurately reflect the original text.
(16) If the KJV is Gods infallible and preserved word to the
English-speaking people, did the English-speaking people have
the word of God from 1525-1604?
Yes, they did, because they were using faithful translations that were
based on the pure and preserved Old Testament Masoretic Text and New
Testament Received Text. They were also using the most accurate
versions of their time, and that is the main thing that God expects of His
people.
(17) Was Tyndales (1525), or Coverdales (1535), or Matthews
(1537), or the Great (1539), or Geneva (1560) English Bibles
absolutely infallible?
Answered in Questions 14, 15, and 16.
(18) If neither the KJV nor any other one version were
absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be born again by the
incorruptible word of God (1 Pet 1:23)?
A lost sinner can be and must be born again by the incorruptible
word of God (1 Pet 1:23). Gods Word has been purely preserved in the
Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus. Any accurate
translation based on this can be used of God to save sinners.
Can the NIV, for instance, lead someone to salvation? Here is an
answer from the Trinitarian Bible Society: The NIV contains enough
351
truth to be used of the Holy Spirit to draw a man to the Saviour. But
although it contains truth, is it the very Word of God? If not, Christians
must be urged to return to the truth.
There is no denial that sinners may be saved through the modern
versions if such versions contain enough of the gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4),
just like a person may be saved by hearing a sermon or reading a tract.
This however does not mean that God sanctions such versions or that the
Church should continue using them. Remember, God still holds His
people responsible to use the most faithful translation, based on the
purest text.
(19) If the KJV can correct the inspired originals, did the
Hebrew and Greek originally breathed out by God need correction
or improvement?
Answered in Question 5.
(20) Since most KJV-Onlyites believe the KJV is the inerrant
and inspired scripture (2 Pet 1:20), and 2 Peter 1:21 says that the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, would you not
therefore reason thusFor the King James Version came not in
1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost?
This question assumes all KJV-Only advocates to be Ruckmanites
who believe that the KJV was given by divine inspiration. This is a very
unfair and untrue representation of the facts. It would be absurd to
ascribe to a translation the same degree of perfection that the Holy Spirit
gave in the inspiration of the original language Scriptures. The divine
inspiration of the original language Scriptures is quite different from the
translation of the Scriptures for no translators can claim divine
inspiration for their translation work. Nonetheless, the KJV pastors and
scholars faithfully and accurately translated their English Bible from the
inspired and inerrant Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words that God has
providentially and infallibly preserved.
(21) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant
scripturewhom ye (Cambridge KJVs) or whom he (Oxford
KJVs) at Jeremiah 34:16?
The reading whom ye in the Cambridge KJV is correct. In
Jeremiah 34:16, the Hebrew shillachthem is the piel perfect form of the
352
root shalach with a 2nd masculine plural suffix. The verbally inerrant
reading is thus whom ye. The Oxford whom he has to be a spelling/
typing/printing error.
(22) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant
scripturesin (Cambridge KJVs) or sins (Oxford KJVs) at 2
Chronicles 33:19?
The Hebrew word used in 2 Chronicles 33:19 is chattatho, a
feminine singular noun with a 3rd masculine singular suffix (see BDB,
308). Again the Cambridge KJV, his sin, is correct (see Question 21
above).
(23) Who publishes the infallible inerrant KJV?
The British Crown owns the copyright to the KJV, and hence the
right to grant permission to publish it to whomever she wishes. Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II licensed only William Collins Sons and
Company Limited to print and publish the KJV in 1958. However, it does
seem that the Crown does not care too much to enforce her copyright.
The KJV is published today by not a few University Presses, Bible
Societies, publishing houses, and software companies in Britain and
America and elsewhere. As regards the inerrant KJV see Question 24
below.
(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 [sic] made
many hundreds of changes [sic] would you say the KJV was
verbally inerrant in 1611 or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744,
1762, 1769, or 1850 [sic]?
When we talk about infallibility, inerrancy, and inspiration, we are
primarily referring to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words of the Holy
Scriptures. A Bible translation is infallible, and inerrant only to the
extent that it is faithful and accurate to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures,
and even then its inerrancy, and infallibility is not direct but derived.
It must be noted that the changes to the KJV were not due to any
change in the Hebrew and Greek Text, but to the refinements that have
been made to the English language itself, and to the typographical or
typesetting mistakes that arose out of the printing process. The original
language text itself is verbally inerrant. Translations made from that text
would share in the verbal inerrancy of the text insofar as they are
accurate word-for-word translations of the text. Thus, refinement and
353
improvement in translation was not only possible, but also needful (see
answer to Question 8).
(25) Would you contend that God waited until a king named
James sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His
Word in English, and would you think well if the historical fact
was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all
his life?
There are those who say that King James was a homosexual, and
there are those who think not (recently, a scholarly 392-page book by
Stephen A Coston Sr, King James the VI of Scotland and the I of
England: Unjustly Accused? [St Petersburg: KoenigsWort Incorporated,
1996], takes the latter view). But for arguments sake, let us say King
James was homosexual. Being homosexual he would surely alter
scriptural texts that speak against the sin of homosexuality. We do not
find such alterations in the KJV. On the contrary, we find intact such
passages as Romans 1:26-27 speaking out against vile affections; for
even their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
error which was meet. If King James were truly homosexual, he would
be expected to change or dilute this passage. There was no such
tampering. In any case, even if King James was homosexual, he was not
among the translators, and had no part in the translating work.
(26) Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard
Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group,
was led by God in translating even though he was an alcoholic that
drank his fill daily throughout the work? (Gustavus Paine, The
Men Behind the KJV, 40, 69).
No one can ever claim that the men who translated the KJV were
perfectly sinless. If they were alive, they would probably be the first to
admit their sins, and confess the grace of God that allowed them the
privilege of being involved in the Bible translation work. Even the
original Old Testament and New Testament writers of the Scriptures were
not perfect men. For example, David committed adultery and yet God
used him to write the Psalms. Peter denied Christ three times and yet
wrote First and Second Peter. Generally speaking, there is no reason to
354
doubt that the men who translated the KJV, like the biblical writers, were
regenerate men of piety, godliness and erudite scholarship, their
weaknesses and failings of the flesh notwithstanding.
Now, what about Richard Thomson? Richard Montague called him
a most admirable philologist, and no doubt for this reason he was
inducted into the translation committee. Paine says that he was among the
younger men. What about his drinking? McClure would have us know
that Thomsons alcoholism occurred in his later years, and not necessarily
during the time he worked on the KJV. At any rate, even if Thomson did
drink, Paine tells us that he arose in the morning with his head clear
enough to go forward competently with the days work.
The Bible teaches the divine inspiration of the words and not the
men whether apostles, prophets, scribes or translators. The men were
spiritually guided (2 Pet 1:21), but the words were divinely inspired and
absolutely inerrant not only in matters of salvation, but also in matters of
history, geography and science (2 Tim 3:16).
(27) Is it possible that the rendition gay clothing, in the KJV
at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English
KJV reader?
It is unfortunate that the word gay today has acquired a negative
connotation. The modern English KJV reader however would not be
misled, when he reads the context of James 2:3And ye have respect to
him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a
good place It is easy to see here that the word gay has nothing to
do with homosexual attire, but with wealthy, ostentatious dressing.
(28) Did dead people wake up in the morning according to
Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
In Isaiah 37:36, the KJV renders a literal and accurate translation of
the Hebrew text: Then the angel of the LORD went forth, and smote in
the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand:
and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead
corpses. It is quite plain that they who arose were not the same as
they who were dead corpses.
(29) Was Baptist Johns last name according to Matthew 14:8
and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
355
In Bible times, as well as in KJV English, it was not uncommon to

find a person surnamed with his title or official designation. Eg
Antiochus Epiphanes, Julius Caesar, Judas Maccabeus. The word
Baptist was therefore not Johns last name, but his well-known
designation.
(30) Does 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV make any sense to
the modern English KJV reader as compared to the NIV?
Although modern English versions may make certain verses easier
to understand to the modern reader, they may not be accurate to the true
meaning or intent of the text. As a matter of fact, present-day English
versions like the NIV, by using the loose dynamic equivalence method
of translation, have gone too far in giving a modern and strange voice in
an attempt to replace the KJV.
The NIV rendering of 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 is a case in point. It
shows how the NIV is an interpretation of or a commentary on the
original text, and not a word-for-word translation. For example, the KJV
practically translates word-for-word the meaning of the original text in
verse 11, to stoma hemon (our mouth) aneoge (is opened) pros (unto)
humas (you), but the NIV interprets the words as We have spoken
freely to you which do not give the actual or precise meaning of the
verbally (not conceptually) inspired Scripture. In fact the original words
mean much more than free speech. As such, the NIV should not be
taken as Holy Bible since it does not translate the inspired words of
God accurately word for word. At best, it is only a commentary on the
Bible like any other commentary written by men and thus prone to human
fallibility and subjectivity.
Hence, we strongly discourage the use of the modern versions
disguised as Holy Bible for personal study because of the many
omissions, distortions, inaccuracies and misinterpretations found in them
due to their corrupt source text and wrong method of translation. Instead,
we recommend The Defined King James Bible published by The Bible
For Today Press, 1998, where all the archaic words have their respective
modern meanings footnoted for convenient reference. For example, the
archaic word straitened in 2 Corinthians 6:12 is footnoted as closely
restricted, hemmed in. Readers today can thus easily read and
understand the faithful and reliable KJV.
356
(31) Does the singular oaths occurring in every KJV at

Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26 correct every Textus Receptus Greek
which has the plural oaths?
Although horkous is in the Greek plural, there are times when it is
legitimate to render the plural in the singular especially when it is a plural
of majesty. At times the plural speaks not of multiplicity but of majesty. It
seeks to highlight the grandiose nature of the meaning contained in the
noun. This is probably the case with Matthew 14:9 and Mark 6:26
especially when we notice that the oath was given by a king. In other
words, it was no ordinary oath, but a royal oath, and must thus be doubly
honoured by the king who made it. That was why Herod, though
extremely reluctant to kill John, could not retract the promise he had
already made. The KJV translation, for the oaths sake, is thus perfectly
legitimate.
(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be worshipped
according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first
commandment and what He said in Luke 4:8? (Rememberyou
may not go to the Greek for any light if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
The word doxa here is to be distinguished from the usual worship
(latreuo and proskuneo) that is accorded to God. The context clearly
shows that the word worship in Luke 14:10 has nothing to do with
religious worship, but has the connotation of respect or honour given to
men in high office or dignitaries. The KJV is thus not self-contradictory
in Luke 4:8 and 14:10.
Although we strongly recommend the laity to use the KJV as their
scriptural text in their study of the Bible, we reject the fallacious view
that the Greek Bible cannot be used to shed light on the English text.
(33) Is the Holy Spirit an it according to John 1:32; Romans
8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? (Againyou may not go to the
Greek for any light if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
The word it here, with reference to the Holy Spirit, is the direct
result of the literal translation of the neuter gender of the pronouns and
participles in the Greek text that stand in agreement with the neuter
gender for the Greek word for spirit (pneuma). This does not mean that
the KJV teaches that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. The cited
verses themselves show that this is not the case, as a force cannot bear
witness with our spirit that we are the children of God (Rom 8:16), make
357
intercession for us (Rom 8:26) or testify beforehand of the sufferings of

Christ (1 Pet 1:11). Only a person can do such things, and the Holy Spirit
is a personthe third person of the Holy Trinity.
Againalthough we hold to a KJV-superiority position, we
categorically reject the false view that says the inspired Greek Text may
not be used to shed light on the KJV.
(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a Friday crucifixion in the KJV
(no day here in Greek)?
Luke 23:56 supports a Friday crucifixion in the light of verses 54
and 55. Luke clearly recorded that the day of the crucifixion was the day
of the preparation, and the sabbath drew on (near) (Luke 23:54). The
preparation was the preparation for the sabbath of the passover week (2
Chron 30:21-22, ie, the feast of the unleavened bread which lasts for
seven days). The passover that Jesus observed was held on a Thursday
evening, while the preparation of the passover was held on a Friday
(Mark 15:42). Jesus was thus crucified and buried on Friday before the
sabbath day (ie, Saturday) which was a day of rest. The women
returned to the tomb on Sunday with their spices and ointments only to
discover that Jesus is risen from the dead (Luke 24:1-6).
(35) Did Jesus command for a girl to be given meat to eat
according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? (or, of them that sit at meat
with thee at Luke 14:10).
It is most reasonable to translate Luke 8:55 the way the KJV has
done, because what else could have been given to the girl to eat than
something that is edible? In KJV English, meat refers to food. As for
Luke 14:10, the context of the wedding feast makes it obvious that there
must have been meat or food on the table, since they were obviously
reclining down to eat.
(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a Bible-corrector for
saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered saved in hope, instead
of the KJVs saved by hope?
There is no mistranslation in the KJV of Romans 8:24 since the
word hope (elpidi) in this verse is in the dative case, which can be
translated in several ways. Spurgeons interpretation is only one possible
way to translate the dative case. Not all interpreters will agree with
Spurgeon that it should be rendered saved in hope instead of the KJVs
saved by hope. Neither do we think it good for anyone to cause a
358
believer to doubt Gods Word as accurately translated in the KJV from

the inspired and preserved text.
(37) Was J Frank Norris a Bible-corrector for saying that the
correct rendering of John 3:5 should be born of water and the
spirit, and for saying that repent and turn in Acts 26:20 should be
repent, even turn? (Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pp108, 116).
Also, is Norman Pickering an Alexandrian Apostate for stating,
The nature of language does not permit a perfect translationthe
semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is
seldom complete overlap?
The KJV has the second of in John 3:5 in italics, which means
that it is supplied by the translators and not found in the Greek text. This
allows the reader to decide for himself whether to interpret it with or
without the preposition. Actually the word spirit here is in the genitive
case, the same as the word water. The genitive has the idea of out of
especially when used with the Greek preposition ek. It is reasonable for
the translators to conclude that the preposition applies to both the words
and not only to the first one.
As for Acts 26:20, the Greek conjunction kai can be translated as
and, also, or even. The rendering, repent, even turn though
permissible, does not detract from the KJVs repent and turn which is
perfectly accurate.
It is not wrong to state that the nature of languages does not permit a
perfect translation, but surely a translation ought to be as perfect as
can be in terms of its accuracy and faithfulness to the original text. What
is required of Gods people is to use the most accurate translation
available, one that is closest to the original text. The KJV is such a
translation for the English language.
(38) Was R A Torrey lying when he said the following in
1907No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of
the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by
many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely
infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a
substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally
given? (Difficulties in the Bible, p17).
It is correct to believe that the Scriptures as originally given
meaning the Scriptures in the original languagesHebrew, Aramaic, and
359
Greekare the absolutely infallible and inerrant Word of God. All the
originally inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words have been
perfectly preserved by God and we have them today.
Our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the
Scriptures as originally given. In other words, the KJV, even though it is
the best, most accurate, most faithful translation, is still a translation of
the Scriptures as originally given.
(39) Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing in favor of canonizing
our KJV, thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek?
(The Flaming Torch, June 1989, p6).
It is not correct to favour the canonizing of the KJV, as that would
elevate it to a status even higher than the inspired and preserved texts
from which it was translated. Read the answers to Questions 5-6.
(40) Did God supernaturally move His Word from the original
languages to English in 1611?
No, we do not believe that God supernaturally moved His Word
from the original languages to English (see answers to Questions 1, 3-7).
We categorically reject the Ruckmanite view of double inspiration and
advanced revelation for the KJV.
More Answers to Questions

(41) If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work,
how is it that they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and
imperfections as Bible translators?
The KJV translators rightly did not claim to be inspired by God in
their translation work, because they were not. Inspiration is applicable
only to the words that God had breathed out in the beginning and
inscripturated by Spirit-moved Prophets and Apostles who were specially
commissioned by the Lord to preach and write the Holy Scriptures (2 Pet
1:21, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13).
Nevertheless, it must be observed that the King James translators
recognised with deep reverence that the sacred texts from which they
were translating were the inspired words of God. This is why they
ardently desired to make their translation as accurate as possible despite
their own shortcomings and imperfections. In contrast to this, not all who
are involved in modern Bible translation work today have such a high
360
regard for the texts they translate, as evidenced from the bold liberties
they are willing to take with the text.
(42) When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus and
the Majority Text, why do you prefer the Textus Receptus?
The Majority Text or Byzantine Text refers to most of the extant
Greek New Testament manuscripts we have today. The majority of
faithfully transmitted manuscripts bear remarkable uniformity. There are
some differences, but Gods special providential preservation of His
words ensured that the text found in the vast majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts is a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely
inspired Original Text (E F Hills, The King James Version Defended,
106).
The special providential preservation of the New Testament saw the
eventual printing of the Textus Receptus in the time of the Reformation.
The Textus Receptus was an edition of the Majority Text that was the
traditional text, received and used extensively by the Church throughout
the centuries, and by the Reformers and Protestants for their translation
work in various languages.
The Textus Receptus and Majority Text belong to the same family
of traditional and preserved texts. However in a few places, the Textus
Receptus is preferred over the Majority Text because the Protestant
Reformation was used by God to recognise and identify all the pure
words of the original Scriptures. One example is 1 John 5:7 (see my
paper, A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of
the Johannine Comma: Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the
Doctrine of the Trinity? in http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/
johannine.htm).
(43) Did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote
from the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even
though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places
and was certainly not a perfect translation?
We doubt that Jesus made use of and quoted from the Septuagint (a
Greek translation of the inspired Hebrew Old Testament). There is not
one instance in the Scriptures where we find Jesus or the Apostles saying
that they have quoted from the Septuagint. Many of the Greek quotations
of the Old Testament do not agree with the Septuagint. The few
quotations that do agree are probably due to the Septuagint copying from
361
the inspired Greek New Testament rather than the other way round. It is
also reasonable to assume that Jesus and the Apostles did their own direct
translation of the Hebrew text into Greek. See Prabhudas Koshy, Did
Jesus and the Apostles Rely on The Corrupt Septuagint? Bible Witness
(July-September 2002): 25-26.
(44) Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have
been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been
perfectly preserved and perfectly mirrors the original?
It is fallacious to dogmatically assume that no two Greek New
Testament manuscripts are exactly the same. There are over 5000 extant
Greek New Testament manuscripts, and not all of them have been
thoroughly examined and compared yet. What we do know for a fact is
that the majority of the manuscripts reflect remarkably uniform readings,
and this must necessarily mean that they are the providentially preserved
copies (see J W Burgons The Traditional Text published by the Dean
Burgon Society; see also E F Hills, The King James Version Defended,
139-68). Burgon proved that the Traditional Text on which the KJV is
based is the trustworthy and providentially preserved text over against
Westcott and Horts corrupt Alexandrian or Minority Text which is from
a very small number (1%) of the extant manuscripts.
The two chief representatives of the Alexandrian or Minority Text
are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). According to
Burgon, these two Alexandrian manuscripts are absolutely unreliable.
Burgon wrote, B and Aleph, have established a tyrannical ascendancy
over the imagination of the Critics, which can only be fitly spoken of as a
blind superstition. It matters nothing that all four are discovered on
careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only from ninety-nine out of a
hundred of the whole body of extant MSS. besides, but even from one
another. This last circumstance, obviously fatal to their corporate
pretensions, is unaccountably overlooked. And yet it admits of only one
satisfactory explanation: viz. that in different degrees they all exhibit a
fabricated text. Between the first two (B and Aleph) there subsists an
amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they must have been
derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt original. ... And
be it remembered that the omissions, additions, substitutions,
transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the same in both. It is
in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS.
differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they
362
entirely agree. [J W Burgon, The Revision Revised (Collingswood NJ:

Dean Burgon Society Press, 1883), 12].
We have every reason to believe the pure text of Gods Word is
found in the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text that underlies the KJV as
opposed to the host of modern versions that are based on the grossly
corrupt Alexandrian/Minority/Rejected Text of Westcott and Hort and the
modern versions.
(45) Why does the KJV differ from the Textus Receptus in
certain places like Acts 19:20 where the Greek has Lord and the
KJV has God?
There is no significant difference between the Textus Receptus and
the KJV in Acts 19:20. The Greek word kurios can be translated in a
number of ways depending on the context. It can be rendered Lord,
master, sir, God, or owner (see The Complete Word Study
Dictionary: New Testament, 900-1). Acts 19:20 certainly allows for
God instead of Lord since the context is speaking of the Word of
God as a whole. If it is rendered as word of the Lord it might be
construed as some specific word from Jesus instead of Gods Word or the
Holy Scriptures in general. In any case, whether it is the word of God,
or the word of the Lord, both are perfectly acceptable translations of
the original.
(46) Has any Bible to date proved to be that hoped for
improvement of the KJV?
Some say the NKJV is the answer. We doubt that it is, since it has
done away with the yes, thees, thous, thys, and thines.
These not only serve to distinguish between the 2nd person singular and
plural, but they also heighten the reverence of the language of Gods
Holy Word. There are also many other unnecessary changes to the old
KJV. The NKJV is not recommended because it (1) shows sympathy to
the corrupt Westcott and Hort Text; (2) departs from the Traditional
Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus at certain places;
(3) incorrectly translates certain verses (eg, Heb 2:16 where its
mistranslation undermines the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ); (4)
unnecessarily changes perfectly understandable and accurate words from
the old KJV; (5) adds words without italicising them, thereby giving the
false impression that they are from the original; and (6) changes nouns to
pronouns and pronouns to nouns (see also Malcom Watts, The New King
363
James Version: A Critique, Trinitarian Bible Society, 2008; and D A

Waite, The New King James Version Compared to the King James
Version and the Underlying Hebrew and Greek Texts, Bible For Today,
1990).
Today, an improved edition of the KJV can be found in The Defined
King James Bible which supplies the modern meanings of the archaic
words of the KJV in its footnotes.
(47) Why did the KJV translators translate the Apocrypha and
include these books in the original 1611 edition?
It must be stated that the KJV translators in no wise considered the
Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture. The Westminster Confession of Faith
(1643-8) which was written not long after the KJV was translated states
that the Apocrypha was clearly not recognised by Gods people to be part
of the Word of God. It is significant to note that when it came to
translating the Apocrypha, the KJV translators did not care very much for
it. Scrivener wrote, It is well known to Biblical scholars that the
Apocrypha received very inadequate attention from the revisers of 1611
and their predecessors, so that whole passages remain unaltered from the
racy, spirited, rhythmical, but hasty, loose and most inaccurate version
made by Coverdale for the Bible of 1536.
It is also important to note that it was not only the KJV that
contained the Apocrypha but also other Reformation Bibles like the
Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles. It was only in 1640 that the Geneva Bible
omitted the Apocrypha, and it was not until the 19th century that the
removal of the Apocrypha from all Protestant Bibles became the norm.
(48) Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1
John 2:23?
The words he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also in
1 John 2:23 were italicised because the King James translators initially
did not find them in the Majority Text and in earlier editions of the
Textus Receptus. The common faith however restrained them from
omitting those words since they were found in the Great Bible and the
Bishops Bible. Later research produced evidence that they should be part
of inspired Scripture because of the testimony of a good number of Greek
manuscripts including Aleph and B. The italics should have been
removed in the reprints of the KJV but unfortunately escaped the
attention of the printers.
364
(49) Why are there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the
King James Bible? (Examples: Matthew 26:26, Many Greek copies
have , Luke 10:22, Many ancient copies add these words ,
Luke 17:36, These verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies,
Acts 25:6, Or as some copies read, .
These marginal notes compared the differences among the various
editions of the Textus Receptus. Dr E F Hills observed that this
comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various
editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are
also very few. the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first edition of
Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times. On
the other hand, the corrupt Alexandrian codices like Aleph, B and D
differ in so many places and could not agree among themselves: Codex B
disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944
times. What a contrast!
Hills went on to say, The texts of the several editions of the Textus
Receptus were God guided. They were set up under the leading of Gods
special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept down
to a minimum.
But what do we do in these few places in which the several
editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do
we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the
common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon
which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the
stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more
precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version [E F Hills,
The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian Research
Press, 1984), 222-3].
(50) Blayneys edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard
form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from
the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the
KJV (Blayneys or the original) is the perfect Bible?
An analysis of the 75,000 minor details will reveal that the changes
were for the most part in updating the spelling of English words that had
changed over time. It would be therefore quite unfair and untrue to say
that our present KJV edition is flawed, not being identical with the 1611
edition in 75,000 details. If a modern English reader were to read the
365
1611 edition, he may find it very difficult to read, because of all the
different spelling of certain words. We must thank the Lord for the
subsequent editions of the KJV which made the KJV more accurate and
readable. According to Dr D A Waite, there were not 75,000 but only 285
minor changes not of substance but of form such as towards for
toward, burnt for burned, amongst for among (D A Waite,
Defending the King James Bible, 238; see also answer to Question 8).
Once again we say that the KJV-superiority position does not mean
that the KJV cannot be improved on or that the original language texts
may not be used to shed further light on Gods truth found in the English
Bible. The KJV-superiority position is merely the logical result of
applying the principle that God holds His people in the English-speaking
world (just as He holds those in other languages) responsible to use the
best translation of the Bible that is presently available and done by the
best translators (spiritually and academically qualified) from the best
Hebrew and Greek texts (NOT the Westcott and Hort text BUT the
traditional Masoretic Hebrew and Received Greek texts) which possess
all the qualities of infallibility and inerrancy since they possess all the
originally inspired words that God has continuously preserved without
the loss of any word to the jot and tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18).
366
42
CAN VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION DO
WITHOUT VERBAL PLENARY PRESERVATION?
The Achilles Heel of Princeton Bibliology
Jeffrey Khoo
Issue
The old Princeton theology has often been regarded as the scholarly
orthodoxy that should characterise evangelical theology in the face of
challenges posed by liberalism or modernism. Alexander, Hodge and
Warfield are household names in evangelical-theological scholarship.
They have become reference points of theological orthodoxy. Despite
their noble attempts to articulate the fundamental doctrines of the
Christian Faith, it is increasingly discovered that Princeton in its efforts
to defend theological orthodoxy and gain a certain level of acceptability
and respectability in the scholarly world had compromised the supreme
and absolute authority of the Scriptures by adopting the textual critical
methods of rationalistic scholasticism.
Textual criticism introduced by Princeton Seminary is the Trojan
horse in Reformed, evangelical, and fundamentalist Bibliology today. No
Reformed, evangelical or fundamentalist scholar, without wanting to
look stupid or foolish, would dare affirm without equivocation that the
Bible in our hands today is infallible and inerrant, without any mistake.
This is the tragedy of compromise.
This paper seeks to expose the fallacy of the Princeton theology
especially as regards its Bibliology, and warn of the dangers that it
presents to Gods people as they face the incessant salvoes against Christ
and His Word by Postmodernism, Ecumenism, Neo-Evangelicalism, NeoFundamentalism, Open Theism and Neo-Deism today.
367
Archibald Alexander
The theology of Princeton was shaped by Archibald Alexander
(1772-1851), the first professor of theology at Princeton, and by his
successors, Charles Hodge and B B Warfield.1 These men remain highly
respected by reformed and evangelical scholars today. But before we
decide to bow to their scholarship, we need to examine what they
believed about the Scriptures.
Archibald Alexander promoted the Westminster Standards to be the
orthodox expression of faith. He also upheld the power of human reason.
What of the Bible in his hands? Well he believed that the Bible was
indeed preserved by Gods singular care and providence as spelled out
in the Westminster Confession of Faith quoting Matthew 5:18, but his
human mind could not accept the idea that the apographs (ie, copies of
the originals) could be infallible and inerrant. It ought to be noted that
Alexanders preserved text manifested no less than 60,000 scribal errors,
but in his opinion, these did not affect doctrine in any way.2 In his
inaugural sermon at his installation as Princetons first professor of
theology, he spoke positively of textual criticism, and posited the theory
of conceptual preservation: For though the serious mind is at first
astonished and confounded, upon being informed of the multitude of
various readings yet it is relieved, when on careful examination, it
appears that not more than one of a hundred of these, makes the slightest
variation in the sense, and that the whole of them do not materially affect
one important fact or doctrine.3
Alexander saw no contradiction between his opinion of scribal
errors in the texts that he had in his hands and the Westminster
Confessions affirmation of the divine preservation of Scripture because
he considered the perfection of the autographs and the purity of the
apographs to concern merely doctrine and not words. In other words,
these scribal errors do not affect any vital doctrine of the Christian faith,
and there is no trouble even in seeing that God could have inspired
these scribal errors in the lost autographs and that these same scribal
errors could have been preserved in the apographs the church now has
in her hands. It appears that Alexander had no qualms admitting that the
autographs were not inerrant for he wrote, it is even possible that some
of the autographs, if we had them, might not be altogether free from such
errors as arise from the slip of the pen, as the apostles [had] amanuens[es]
who were not inspired.4
368
Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration Do Without Verbal Plenary Preservation?
The case of Alexander shows that a rejection of verbal preservation

in favour of conceptual preservation could lead ultimately to a denial of
verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. This was clearly
what happened to Bart Ehrman (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary)
who had Bruce MetzgerPrincetons George L Collord Professor of
New Testament Language and Literature, Emeritus, but known also as
Bible Butcher5for his mentor. In his book Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman
testified how a Bible filled with scribal errors today became a problem
for him:
If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what
would be the point if we dont have the very words of scripture? Its a bit
hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we dont even know what
the words are!
This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that
it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of
scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place.
If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given to
them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could
understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we dont have the
words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us.
And if he didnt perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think
that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.6
It is significant to note that Ehrman began as a fundamentalist in

Moody Bible Institute, but eventually succumbed to the dark side when
he went to Princeton where he came under the mentorship of textualcritical VaderBruce Metzgerwhom he calls his Doctor-Father.7
Edward F Hills had long warned that a denial or even a low view of
the special providential preservation of the Scriptures would logically
and ultimately lead one to a denial of the verbal and plenary inspiration
of the same Scriptures.
Conservative scholars ... say that they believe in the special, providential
preservation of the New Testament text. Most of them really dont though,
because, as soon as they say this, they immediately reduce this special
providential preservation to the vanishing point in order to make room for
the naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort. As we have seen, some say
that the providential preservation of the New Testament means merely that
the same substance of doctrine is found in all the New Testament
documents. Others say that it means that the true reading is always present
in at least one of the thousands of extant New Testament manuscripts. And
369

still other scholars say that to them the special, providential preservation of
the Scriptures means that the true New Testament text was providentially
discovered in the mid-19th century by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott
and Hort after having been lost for 1,500 years.
If you adopt one of these false views of the providential preservation of
Scriptures, then you are logically on your way toward the denial of the
infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. For if God has preserved the
Scriptures so carelessly, why would he have infallibly inspired them in the
first place? It is not sufficient therefore merely to say that you believe in the
doctrine of the special, providential preservation of holy Scriptures. You
must really believe this doctrine and allow it to guide your thinking. You
must begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed according to the logic
of faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and
the King James Version, in other words, to the common faith.8
Taking Alexanders lead, Princeton began on a wrong footing as

regards the verbal and plenary preservation of the Holy Scriptures which
eventually saw its rejection of the Textus Receptus in favour of the
Westcott-Hort Text. Alexander had laid the foundation for Charles Hodge
(1797-1878) and B B Warfield (1851-1921) to pursue rationalistic textual
criticism that was growing out of German scholasticism.
Charles Hodge and His Son C W Hodge

Charles Hodge was exposed to textual criticism when he studied in
Germany from 1826 to 1828. Despite his studies in textual criticism and
his knowledge of textual variants among the manuscripts, Hodge was
careful not to engage in any form of conjectural emendation of the
Biblical text which he considered to be wholly illegitimate. He urged
rightly, it would be exceedingly injurious as every critic would think
himself authorized to make alterations and thus certainty and authority of
S.S. [sacred Scripture] would be destroyed.9 Despite the textual critical
theories he learned in Germany which sought to dethrone the Textus
Receptus at that time, Hodge stuck to it and recognised its authenticity.10
Although Charles Hodge upheld the Textus Receptus, he did not
defend it vigorously enough, and did not warn against the rationalistic
textual critical views that were emerging out of Germany. He was
contented with an essentially infallible but not totally inerrant Scripture
for he admits that the Scriptures do contain, in a few instances,
discrepancies which with our present means of knowledge, we are unable
satisfactorily to explain.11
370
It was left to Hodges son, C W Hodge, to pave the way for Germanstyle textual criticism in Princeton Seminary. C W Hodge found no point
addressing the inspiration of Scripture if the extant manuscripts were full
of textual variations and scribal errors. He asked, What are we to say of
verbal inspiration when the Church cannot agree as to the words of the
text? He had accumulated no less than 120,000 textual variants (double
that of Alexander) and even dismissed the Trinitarian text of 1 John 5:7 to
be unworthy of Scripture. His rejection of 1 John 5:7 was due to
Griesbachs dictum that all readings favouring orthodoxy were to be
immediately regarded as suspect.12 (As noted above, this is also the
textual critical mindset and method of Bart Ehrman.) Agreeing with
Westcott and Hort, Hodge also rejected the authenticity of the last 12
verses of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the pericope de adultera (John 7:538:11).
B B Warfield
The Reformation cry of Sola Scriptura as the supreme and final
authority of the Christian faith and life has always been understood to
mean the infallible and inerrant Scriptures believers had in their
possession. The Scripture that the Reformers accepted as infallible and
inerrant were not the autographs but the apographs, and the preserved
apographs had all the very words and passages (last 12 verses of Mark,
pericope de adultera, Johannine comma, etc) which textual critical
scholars today, following Griesbach, Westcott and Hort, say are not
Scripture at all.13
Francis Turretin (1623-1687), pastor and theologian of the Church
and Academy of Geneva, made it quite clear that the Reformers never
thought of the infallible and inerrant Scriptures in terms of the nonexistent autographs but always the available and accessible apographs.
Turretin wrote,
By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of
Moses, of the prophets and the apostles, which certainly do not now exist.
We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us
the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.14
Now, B B Warfield came into the scene two centuries later and
changed all that by introducing his new theory of Sola Autographa, that
the inerrancy of the Scriptures resides only in the autographs, the very
371
first scripts written by the original authors themselves.15 By so doing, he

could straddle himself quite comfortably between the liberal and
conservative camps. He would have had no qualms agreeing with the
liberals who pounded on self-claimed evidence and reason that the
Bible was indeed erroneous with many mistakes whether intentional or
unintentional, divine or human. At the same time, he would have had no
problems affirming with the conservatives that the Bible was truly
inerrant because he thought of the Bibles inerrancy only in terms of its
autographs which of course no longer exist, and thus the inerrancy of
autographs was really a matter of Faith and not Reason, end of
discussion!
Princetons less than perfect view of the verbal and plenary
preservation of the Scriptures came full circle when Warfield accepted
without question the textual critical theory and method of Westcott and
Hort. Warfield promoted the critical text of Westcott and Hort soon after
it appeared in 1881.16 Princeton historian David Calhoun was correct to
note that Warfields positive attitude toward textual criticism influenced
many to appreciate the science and to value the new translations of the
Bible based upon its work.17
Letis observed that it was Warfields employment of German higher
criticism and Westcott-Horts lower (textual) criticism that led him to
reject the authenticity of age-old Bible passages like Mark 16:9-20.18 Like
Westcott and Hort, Warfield accepted the conjectural emendation (ie,
speculative correction) of the Scriptures.19 Warfield and all the higher and
lower critics were thus advocating that the Bible the Church had been
using throughout the centuries contained non-inspired and extrascriptural material which God never gave and never intended His people
to read! Did the Church Fathers and the Reformers all misquote Jesus,
reading from the wrong Bible? God forbid!
It is thus no surprise that Warfield, given his sympathy to the liberal
method, did not think that the doctrine of the verbal and plenary
inspiration of the Scriptures was indispensable. He wrote,
Let it not be said that thus we found the whole Christian system upon the
doctrine of plenary inspiration. Inspiration is not the most fundamental
of Christian doctrines, nor even the first thing we prove about the
Scriptures. without any inspiration we could have had Christianity; yea,
and men could still have heard the truth and through it been awakened, and
justified, and sanctified, and glorified even had we no Bible; 20
372
But what does the Bible say about itself and its relation to faith and
salvation? It is written, The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the
soul (Ps 19:7). Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by
taking heed thereto according to thy word (Ps 119:9). So then faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17). Does
not Warfield realise that without the Scripture, there could be no Gospel?
For did not the Apostle write, Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the
gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and
wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what
I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto
you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our
sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose
again the third day according to the scriptures (1 Cor 15:1-4)?
According to the scriptures according to the scriptures our faith
must be, or else it is blind faith or no faith at all!
Warfields erroneous thinking concerning the indispensable
doctrinal and practical importance of the absolute inspiration, authority
and sufficiency of the Bible is surely refuted by the Bible itself, for it
stands written, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable, for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16-17). The Bible as a whole and in all its
parts to the last iota is precisely what we need, and all that we need, to
know the living and true God, even Jesus Christ, the only way of
salvation from sin and death, has been offered to mankind. We cannot
separate Christ from His words. No Bible, no Christianity!
Warfields dichotomy of Faith and Reason became the philosophical
noose that slowly but surely strangled and finally shook and scandalised
the very foundations of Christianity which are Christs full deity and the
Bibles absolute authority. 21 Such a naturalistic and compromised
approach to the Holy Scriptures and the Christian Faith introduced by
Warfield has left believers utterly vulnerable and practically defenceless
to 20th and 21st century assaults on their Lord and His Word by the
Modern Versions, The DaVinci Code and the Gnostic Gospels.22
Can Doctrines Do Without Words?

Is Princetons Plenary Inspiration enough or is there a need to
affirm Verbal Plenary Inspiration? In other words, does it really matter
373
if we do not have all the inspired words of Scriptures but just the
fundamental doctrines of Christianity? Ryrie commented in his Basic
Theology why there is a need to be very precise and strict in defining
Verbal Plenary Inspiration:
While many theological viewpoints would be willing to say the Bible is
inspired, one finds little uniformity as to what is meant by inspiration. Some
focus it on the writers; others, on the writings; still others, on the readers.
Some relate it to the general message of the Bible; others, to the thoughts;
still others, to the words. Some include inerrancy; many dont.
These differences call for precision in stating the biblical doctrine.
Formerly all that was necessary to affirm ones belief in full inspiration was
the statement, I believe in the inspiration of the Bible. But when some
did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to
say, I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. To counter the
teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, I
believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible. Then because some
did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say,
I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the
Bible. But then infallible and inerrant began to be limited to matters of
faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including
historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became
necessary to add the concept of unlimited inerrancy. Each addition to the
basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching.23
It must be noted that the old Princeton theology did affirm that the
plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must necessarily extend to the
words (ie, verbal inspiration). Charles Hodge made it clear that it is not
just the thoughts, concepts, or doctrines in the Scriptures that are inspired
but their very words. He taught that doctrines of the Scriptures are to be
sought in the words, the two are inseparable. He wrote,
If the wordspriest, sacrifice, ransom, expiation, propitiation, purification
by blood, and the likehave no divine authority, then the doctrine which
they embody has no such authority.
Christ and his Apostles argue from the very words of Scripture. Our
Lord says that David by the Spirit called the Messiah Lord, i.e., David used
that word. It was in the use of a particular word, that Christ said (John x.
35), that the Scriptures cannot be broken. If he call [sic] them gods unto
whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, etc.
The use of that word, therefore, according to Christs view of the Scripture,
was determined by the Spirit of God. Paul, in Gal. iii.16, lays stress on the
fact, that in the promise made by Abraham, a word used is singular and not
374

plural, seed, as of one, and not seeds as of many. Constantly it is the
very words of Scriptures which are quoted as of divine authority.
All these, and similar modes of expression with which the Scriptures
abound, imply that the words uttered were the words of God. The words
of the prophet were the words of God, or he could not be Gods spokesman
and mouth. It has also been shown that in the most formally didactic
passage in the whole Bible on this subject (1 Cor. ii. 10-13), the Apostle
expressly asserts that the truths revealed by the Spirit, he communicated in
words taught by the Spirit.24
Following the old but inadequate Princeton tradition, Presbyterian

denominations and organisations have by and large affirmed merely the
Scriptures plenary inspiration but not its verbal and plenary
inspiration. This is not to deny that some do indeed believe in verbal
inspiration even without affirming the same. Nevertheless, the modernist/
neo-evangelical versus fundamentalist battle for the Bible has so well
developed the doctrine of the Bible that verbal inspiration has become
an indispensable term for Biblical inerrancy in 20th century conservative
evangelical and fundamental theology. 25 As such the doctrinal
constitution or statements of faith of certain Bible-believing and Bibledefending churches or councils might require a much needed updating for
the sake of clarity and precision in stating this Biblical truth.
Can Verbal Inspiration Do Without Verbal Preservation?

The Bibliological crisis that stems from Princeton theology has now
led to the question of not just the Scriptures verbal inspiration but also
its verbal preservation. The modern opinion among reformed, evangelical
and fundamental circles is that although the Scriptures are verbally and
plenarily inspired, they are not verbally and plenarily preserved. As such
the Church may be absolutely certain of the verbal plenary perfection of
the Scriptures only in the past, that is in the autographs, but it may not be
absolutely certain of the verbal plenary perfection of the Scriptures today,
that is in the apographs.
One would think that the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture
would naturally and automatically lead a person to believe in its verbal
and plenary preservation, but sadly such logic is not so simple and
obvious for such adherents who say,
We know for sure that the first Bible is perfect, but we cannot be so sure
that the Bible in our hands today have no mistakes at all; and even if there
375

is such an errorless Bible today, we cannot know where it is because there
are just too many different kinds of Bibles out there, and we just cannot tell
which Bible is true and which is false.
Although we do not know where the perfect Bible is, we are dead against
those who insist that they have in their hands a Bible that is 100% perfect
without any mistake because of their belief that God has not only inspired
His words 100% but also preserved His words 100% in the original
languages to the last iota (Matt 5:18).
Pastors Charles Seet and Colin Wong, and others, in their paper,
Preserving Our Godly Path, opposed the Verbal Plenary Preservation of
the Holy Scriptures by quoting Rowland Ward, a minister of the
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia, who argued against verbal
preservation and denounced the Textus Receptus as the best exemplar of
the preserved text.26 Ward believes that the Bible is infallible and inerrant
to the jot and tittle only in the autographs, but denies that it is so
infallible and inerrant in the apographs. Despite the Westminster
Confessions quotation of Matthew 5:18, Ward simplistically and
illogically dismisses the special providentialjot and tittle
preservation of the Holy Scriptures supposing that
Matthew 5:18 (the jot and tittle passage) is not referring to the transmission
of the text of Scripture but to the authority of Gods claims upon us. The
transmission of Scripture is not such that the sources have been preserved
with exactness in any particular manuscript but, as Owen noted, in all the
manuscripts. And we cannot say that providence has preserved only some
manuscripts since providence extends to all events and thus to the
preservation of all the manuscripts. Nor can we say that providence tells us
which manuscripts are the best ones: only manuscript comparison and
analysis can do that. In short, pure does not mean without any
transcriptional errors but it means something like without loss of
doctrines and with the text preserved in the variety of manuscripts. 27
Several fallacious claims have been posited by Ward in his

statement above. First, Ward claims that Matthew 5:18 concerns the
authority and not the transmission of Scripture. This is a logical fallacy.
The authority of Scripture is inextricably bound to its transmission and
preservation by providentia extraordinaria or supernatural providence.
The promise of the divine preservation of the inspired words of God to its
last jot and tittle is true (unless one cares to spiritualise or explain away
the Biblical text which is often the convenient route of escape by many
who do not wish to face the truths of Gods Word plainly and literally due
376
to certain preconceived ideas or views). Equally significant is the

Westminster Confessions employment of Matthew 5:18 as proof text for
its statement on the special providential preservation of the Scriptures,
highlighting in particular the Bibles authenticity and not merely its
authority: The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in
Greek being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical.28 On the
meaning of the word authentical, J S Candlish rightly commented,
It is obvious that, as the question here is as to the text of Scripture, the word
authentic is used, not in the modern sense in which it has been employed by
many as meaning historically true, but in its more literal sense, attested
as a correct copy of the authors work.29
William Orr likewise noted,

Now this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek
of the New which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately
kept pure in all ages. The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew
Surely the 100% authenticity (or infallibility and inerrancy) of the

Scriptures in the apographs or copies is the very reason why the Bible is
100% authoritative on every matter of faith and practice. How can the
non-existent and intangible autographa or imperfect and corrupted
apographa serve as the supreme and final authority of the Christian
Faith? Surely they cannot!
Second, Ward errs when he says that preservation must be in all the
manuscripts without distinction or discrimination. The fact is not all
manuscripts are pure or uncorrupted. There exist manuscripts that show a
corrupt hand. Dean J W Burgon had proven without doubt the corruptions
that abound in the Alexandrian manuscripts of Westcott and Hort which
he summarily dismissed as the most scandalously corrupt copies
extant.31 Thankfully, by Gods special providence, these corruptions or
corrupted manuscripts are in the minority. The majority of Greek
manuscripts belonging to the Byzantine Text and the Textus Receptus
display essentially the same readings.
Third, Ward holds to a rather uncertain or agnostic view of divine
providence which allows for the preservation of only the doctrines of the
Christian Faith but not the very words of Holy Scripture that God had
377
originally breathed out (theopneustos, 2 Tim 3:16). In other words, he

denies verbal preservation in favour of conceptual preservation. But this
is again not only biblically but also logically untenable, for how can there
be doctrines or concepts without the words to explain or express them.
Ward cited Owen, but for sure the distinguished puritan theologian did
not advocate conceptual preservation over against verbal preservation as
Ward would have us believe. Owen clearly believed in the preservation of
the words of Scripture (ie, verbal preservation), not just the doctrines (ie,
conceptual preservation), for he wrote, Nor is it enough to satisfy us,
that the doctrines mentioned are preserved entire; every tittle and iota in
the Word of God must come under our care and consideration, as being,
as such, from God.32
How easily $1000 becomes $7000 just by adding one stroke to
the number 1, and a tie becomes a lie when the stroke of the t is
removed. Instead of Blest be the tie that binds, shall we now sing
Blest be the lie that binds? Indeed, the tie that binds modernists, neoevangelicals, and neo-fundamentalists is the lie that the Bible is
imperfectly preserved with missing jots and tittles, denying Jesus clear
and precise promise in Matthew 5:18 of the infallible preservation of His
inerrant words. Meanings and figures change when we add to or subtract
from Gods Word, even though it may just be a little bit. Did God allow
His words to be changed, corrupted, or lost? Never! God by His infinite
power and wisdom has ensured that every corruption to His Word is
rejected, and every copying or printing mistake corrected! God is His
own infallible Textual Critic, and we trust in His special providential
work of preserving and restoring every jot and tittle of His words
especially in the days of the Great Protestant Reformation and the age of
the Printed Text so that His Word as a whole and in its parts right down to
the last iota remains infallible and inerrant, and supremely authoritative
in the faith and life of the Church.
Faithful Resolutions
In the 21 century Reformation movement, the Lord has raised a
number of Christ-honouring institutions to take a declared position on the
Biblical doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Preservation of Scriptures and to
promote the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus
underlying the Authorised or King James Bible.
st
378
By the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC)

The ICCC is a worldwide fellowship of fundamental churches
which are opposed to liberalism, ecumenism, charismatism, and neoevangelicalism. Led by Dr Carl McIntire, its founding President, the
ICCC in its World Congress held in Jerusalem in the year 2000 declared,
Believing the Holy Scriptures on the originals to be fully inspired with its
words and genders and being complete as Gods revelation to man without
error;
Believing that God not only inspired the Bible without errors in fact,
doctrine and judgment but preserved the Scriptures in all ages for all
eternity as the Westminster Confession of Faith standard saysthe O.T. in
Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek being immediately inspired by God and
by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore
authentical They are to be translated into the vulgar language of every
nation unto which they come;
Believing the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, gave us a
supernatural gift, and both inspired and preserved it. By inspired we mean
that the Holy Spirit moved in the hearts of its human authors that they
recorded the very words that God wanted written in the Bible using the
personality and background of its writers but without error. For the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. II Pet 1:21;
Believing God safeguarded the Bible in times past and will continue to do
so in the future and all eternity. He preserved on Scripture, the Bible.
Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away; Matt
24:35;
Believing the O.T. has been preserved in the Masoretic text and the N.T. in
the Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the complete Word of God.
The King James Version in English has been faithfully translated from these
God-preserved manuscripts. Other good Protestant versions have been
translated around the world in many languages based on the Masoretic and
Textus Receptus until 1881 when Drs. Westcott and Hort used a shorter text
removing many words, phrases and sections by following the eclectic
watered down polluted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts;
These manuscripts differ widely among themselves and with others amount
to less than 5% of the manuscript evidence. God preserved the Textus
Receptus in the majority text with 95%. This is called the traditional, or
majority text. It is also called Eastern Byzantine text and also the
manuscripts that have the longer and fuller texts;
379

We the International Council of Christian Churches meeting in Jerusalem,
8-14 November 2000 strongly urge the churches in their pulpits and people
at large, to continue to use the time honoured and faithful longer
translations and not the new shorter versions that follow in too many places
the short eclectic texts. These are very similar to the shorter Westcott and
Hort texts that remove or cast doubt on so many passages and words.
Furthermore we are not against new versions as such but believe all true
and faithful versions must be based on the traditional longer texts that the
Holy Spirit preserved through the early century versions, the early church
fathers and the faithful Textus Receptus.33
By the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS)

The TBS, in its latest position statement on the Bible as published in
its Quarterly Record, April-June 2005, affirms in no uncertain terms the
special providential preservation of the Scriptures, and specifically
identifies the underlying texts of the KJV to be its definitive texts:
The Trinitarian Bible Society Statement of Doctrine of the Holy Scripture
approved by the General Committee at its meeting held on 17th January
2005, and revised 25th February 2005 declares:
The Constitution of the Trinitarian Bible Society specifies the textual
families to be employed in the translations it circulates. The Masoretic
Hebrew and the Greek Received Texts are the texts that the Constitution of
the Trinitarian Bible Society acknowledges to have been preserved by the
special providence of God within Judaism and Christianity. Therefore these
texts are definitive and the final point of reference in all the Societys work.
These texts of Scripture reflect the qualities of God-breathed Scripture,
including being authentic, holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy, excellent,
self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous, self-interpreting,
authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119). They are
consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra 7:14; Nehemiah 8:8;
Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct reading at any point is to be sought
within these texts.
The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text the
one prepared in 152425 by Jacob ben Chayyim and known, after David
Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. This text underlies the Old
Testament in the Authorised Version.
The Greek Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts, the
first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. The Society
believes that the latest and best edition is the text reconstructed by F.H.A.
Scrivener in 1894. This text was reconstructed from the Greek underlying
the New Testament of the Authorised Version.34
380
By the Dean Burgon Society (DBS)

The DBS was founded in the USA in 1978 to defend the Traditional
Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the
King James Bible. Dr D A Waite and Dr David Otis Fuller were among
the original founding members.
In its Articles of Faith, the DBS states:
We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the sixty-six
canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to
Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility
Bible uses it, the term inspiration refers to the writings, not the writers (2
Timothy 3:16-17); the writers are spoken of as being holy men of God
and the traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King
We, believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the
Scripture.
Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.35
381
By the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC)

The Far Eastern Bible College, founded by the Rev Dr Timothy Tow
in 1962, in its Constitution states without equivocation its faith in Gods
forever infallible and inerrant words thusly:
We believe in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and
Verbal Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in the original
languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect
Word of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16;
2 Pet 1:20-21; Ps 12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35);
We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament
underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of
God, infallible and inerrant;
We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be the Word of God
the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible
in the English language, and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural
text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.36
May Gods people not adore and exalt seemingly great scholars or
schools of the past and the present, and deem them infallible and inerrant,
for only the inspired and preserved words of God in the Holy Scriptures
are infallible and inerrant, pure and perfect in every way, and our sole and
supreme authority of faith and life to the glory of God. Amen.
Notes
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, sv Alexander, Archibald, Hodge,
Charles, Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, by M A Noll.
2
Theodore Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, 2nd ed (Philadelphia: Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 2000), 6.
3
Quoted by David Cloud, Faith Versus the Modern Bible Versions (Port
Huron: Way of Life, 2005), 309.
4
Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, 6, quoting Lefferts A Loetscher, Facing the
Enlightenment and Pietism (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983), 228.
5
A title he earned for being the General Editor of the Readers Digest Bible.
6
Bart D Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 11.
7
Ibid, Acknowledgments. Ehrman dedicated his book to Metzger.
8
E F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines: Christian Research Press,
1977), 216-20.
9
Quoted by Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, 8.
10
Charles Hodge, Law of Criticism of the New Testament, as cited by
Letis, The Ecclesiatical Text, 9.
1
382

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986
reprint), 1:170.
12
Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, 11.
13
See Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission,
Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd enlarged ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), 119-146; Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament:
An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of
Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 3-35; J Harold
Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964), 78-95; Daniel Wallace, Inspiration, Preservation, and New
Testament, in New Testament Essays: In Honor of Homer A Kent Jr, ed Gary
Meadors (Winona Lake: BMH, 1991), 69-102.
14
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992 reprint), 1:106, emphasis mine. See also
Robert Barnett, Francis Turretin on the Holy Scriptures, a paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Dean Burgon Society held at Calvary Baptist Church,
Ontario, Canada, in 1995 (http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/
barnett95.htm, accessed on June 4, 2006).
15
See Theodore Letis, B B Warfield, Common-Sense Philosophy and
Biblical Criticism, in Edward Freer Hillss Contribution to the Revival of the
Ecclesiastical Text (Philadelphia: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation
Biblical Studies, 1987), 62-89; Jeffrey Khoo, Sola Autographa or Sola
Apographa: A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy
Scriptures, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19; American Presbyterian Church,
B B Warfield and the Doctrine of Inspiration, in http://
www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/inspiration.htm; and B B Warfield and the
Reformation Doctrine of the Providential Preservation of the Biblical Text, in
http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/preservation.htm, accessed on June
1, 2006.
16
Warfield, in his review of the textual critical theory and text of Westcott
and Hort, wrote, We cannot doubt but that the leading principles of method
which they have laid down will meet with speedy universal acceptance. They
furnish us for the first time with a really scientific method. Presbyterian Review
3 (1882): 355. Letis has rightly judged that Warfields glowing review of the
Westcott-Hort Critical theory and text would forever endear it to conservatives
in the United States. The Ecclesiastical Text, 17.
17
David B Calhoun, Princeton Seminary: The Majestic Testimony 18691929 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 113-4.
18
Letis, The Ecclesiastical Text, 19. For a most excellent defence of the
authenticity of Mark 16:9-20, read J W Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of the
Gospel According to S Mark Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and
11
383

Established (Oxford: James Parker and Co, 1871), which has been reprinted by
the Dean Burgon Society (www.deanburgonsociety.org).
19
Warfield wrote, It may be said here, again, that thus a wide door is
opened for the entrance of deceitful dealing with the Word of Life. The danger is
apparent and imminent. But we cannot arbitrarily close the door lest we incur the
same charge. Presbyterian Review 3 (1882): 347-8, as cited in Letis, The
Ecclesiastical Text, 19.
20
Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the
Bible (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948), 210-1.
21
The inconsistency of B B Warfield in separating Faith and Reason in his
theological method was ably exposed by E F Hills, A History of My Defence of
the King James Bible, The Burning Bush 4 (1998): 99-105. For an excellent
synopsis and analysis of modernism, rationalism, and naturalistic textual
criticism, read Hillss, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian
Research Press, 1984), 62-86. This book is now available online without charge:
go to http://www.john3-16.connectfree.co.uk/efhills/efhills index.html.
22
For a Bible-based and faith-based defence of the Christian Faith and
Scripture against Dan Browns attack on the Canon of Scripture through The
DaVinci Code, and Princetons assault on the traditional text and the Textus
Receptus through the Critical Text of Bruce Metzger et al, and the promotion of
the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels, see my papers, The Blasphemy and
Deception of The DaVinci Code (co-authored with Suan-Yew Quek), The
Burning Bush 12 (2006): 14-24; The Judas Gospel: Bad News of Betrayal,
Faith and Freedom (May 2006): 2, 11, 12. Both articles are available online at
www.febc.edu.sg.
23
Charles C Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 67.
24
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986
reprint), 1:164-5.
25
See Quek Suan Yew, Biblical Polemics: A Critical Analysis of Four
Major Modern Religious Movements Which Contribute to the Ultimate
Formation of the One World Church in the Light of Historic Fundamentalist
Theology, unpublished ThD dissertation, Far Eastern Bible College, 2005.
26
Charles Seet and Colin Wong, et al, Preserving Our Godly Path, a
paper presented to the Sunday School of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church on
December 1, 2002. See amended version published in http://www.lifebpc.com/
ourstand/godlypath.htm (accessed on June 1, 2006) against believers who seek to
preserve godly paths by affirming the divine preservation of all the godly words
in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek language Scriptures underlying the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the Authorised or King James Version,
and denounce the corrupt Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort text underlying the
modern Bible versions.
384

Rowland S Ward, Recent Criticisms of the Westminster Confession of
Faith, in http://spindleworks.com/library/wcf/ward.htm#c, accessed on June 1,
2006.
28
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1:8.
29
J S Candlish, The Doctrine of the Westminster Confession on Scripture,
as quoted in Theodore Letis, The Majority Text (Philadelphia: Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987), 174, emphasis mine.
30
William F Orr, The Authority of the Bible as Reflected in the Proposed
Confession of 1967, as quoted in Letis, The Majority Text, 174, emphasis mine.
31
J W Burgon, The Revision Revised (Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society,
1883), 16.
32
Quoted in Jeffrey Khoo, John Owen on the Perfect Bible, The Burning
Bush 10 (2004): 77.
33
ICCC 16th World Congress Statements, Far Eastern Beacon 32:7
(Christmas 2000):14, and cited by Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages:
Recapturing the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of Providential
Preservation (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2001), 126-7. For a historical overview of
Dr Carl McIntires significant contribution to the defence of the historic Christian
Faith, the infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures, and the reliability of King
James Bible in the Bible Presbyterian Church, read Mrs Frank Mood, The Bible
Presbyterian Church and Dr Carl McIntire, in The McIntire Memorial (Seoul:
Truth & Freedom Publishing Co, 2005), 117-125.
34
Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture, 10-11. For the complete
document, go to www.trinitarianbiblesociety.com/site/qr/qr571.pdf. See also the
Societys online articles at http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/
onlinearticles.asp.
35
Dean Burgon Society, Articles of Faith, Operation & Organization, as
adopted at the Organisational Meeting at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November
3-4, 1978 (http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS_Society/articles.htm,
accessed on June 27, 2006). See also D A Waite, The Dean Burgon Society
Deserves Its Name: Ten Reasons Why, at http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/
DBS_Society/deserves.htm, accessed on June 27, 2006.
36
Statement of Faith, Far Eastern Bible College Prospectus (2005-2009):
11. For FEBCs defence of the Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy
Scriptures and the King James Bible, go to http://www.febc.edu.sg/
Doctrine of Perfect Preservation.htm.
27
385
43
INSPIRED TEXTUAL CRITICISM?
Jeffrey Khoo
Is the Biblical doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of
the Holy Scriptures inspired perfect textual criticism? VPP advocates
say No! But VPP detractors persist in painting a different and distorted
picture of their opponents. The skewed depiction of VPP by its detractors
is yet another straw man that has been conveniently and desperately
erected to knock down the 100% inspiration and the 100% preservation
of the infallible and inerrant words of God.1
Let it be stated again that VPP believers do not believe in double
inspiration, post-canonical inspiration, or inspired perfect textual
criticism. As a matter of fact, these are terms alien to the VPP doctrine,
and none of our VPP writings use such terms to explain or describe the
doctrine.
VPP is Not Double Inspiration or Post-Canonical

Inspiration
VPP concerns preservation, not inspiration. VPP is distinguished
from VPI (Verbal Plenary Inspiration). VPI is the one-time act of God in
the past when He breathed out (theopneustos) the original language
words in the autographs of the Holy Scriptures. VPP, on the other hand, is
the continuous act of God in preserving the very same original language
words in the apographs (or copies) of the Holy Scriptures we have in our
hands today. In the VPP doctrine, we are dealing with inspired words of
the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures, and not inspired men or
methods, versions or translations.
Much as VPP believers hold the KJV in very high esteem, they do
not believe in an inspired KJV. As such, they do not embrace a doubly
inspired or separately inspired KJV. As a matter of fact, the Dean
Burgon Society which believes in VPP and defends the KJV frowns upon
any reference to the KJV as inspired or given by inspiration. The
386
Inspired Textual Criticism?
Dean Burgon Society clearly states its official position on the Bibles
Inspiration thus,
Whereas, in all of the official documents of the Dean Burgon Society, the
terms God breathed, or inspired are never used when referring to the
King James Bible, but, on the contrary, there is a clear avoidance of calling
the King James Bible inspired, and
terms breathed out, inspired, or inspiration are reserved exclusively
for the Words of the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek manuscripts or for
the exact copies of those Words that God has been [sic] preserved for us
today, and
terms used for the King James Bible (or Authorized Version) are as follows:
(1) a true, faithful, and accurate translation, (2) a translation that has no
equal among all of the other English translations, (3) the Word of
God,(4) an accurate translation of the true, inerrant, infallible Word of
God, (5) the true Word of God in a faithful language translation, (6) the
God-honored, most accurate, and best translation, (7) a translation that
occupies an honored position, (8) a translation that has our confidence,
and (9) we continue to recommend its continued use in Bible believing
church pulpits, Pastors studies, home, Bible School classes, and formal
classes in Bible Institutes, colleges and theological seminaries, therefore
Be It Resolved, that all members of the Dean Burgon Society and members
of the Executive Committee and Advisory Council particularly follow the
teachings and references found in our official documents when referring
either to the original language texts of Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek or to the
King James Bible, especially regarding the technical distinctions that are
made therein with regard to inspire, inspiration, and other terms.2
The allegation that VPP means an inspired KJV is blatantly false.

Why cannot Anti-VPPists deal with the fact that VPP means a presently
infallible and inerrant Scripture in the original languagesthe Hebrew
Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptuson which the KJV is
based? Is it because they cannot deal with the truth? Or is it because they
have not the faith to believe that God has indeed preserved His words
infallibly to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18)?
Ironically, it is not VPP but Non-VPP or Anti-VPP proponents who
are calling the KJV inspired. For instance, Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church, which is against VPP and calls it schismatic, even heresy,
says this about the KJV, We must declare the KJV Bible to be nothing
387
less than Gods powerful inspired Word.3 Such a strong statement for the
KJV could be misconstrued as Ruckmanism, and it would be better if
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church sticks to the strict definition of Biblical
inspiration (theopneustos) in Article 4.2.1 of her Constitution as
meaning the Holy Scriptures in the original languages (2 Tim 3:16).
Now, if Life Bible-Presbyterian Church believes the KJV to be
nothing less than Gods powerful inspired Word, why then is the Far
Eastern Bible College and all VPP holders at fault for believing the
Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words immediately underlying the KJV to be
nothing less than Gods powerful inspired words, infallible and inerrant?
Those who condemn VPP believers for believing in a Perfect Bible in the
Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament behind the KJV ought
to do some self-examination: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in
thy brothers eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote
that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in
thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own
eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy
brothers eye (Luke 6:41-42). Let us reason together: How can the KJV
be nothing less than Gods powerful inspired Word if its underlying
Hebrew and Greek Texts are imperfect and contain mistakes? How can
the KJV be good when its underlying texts or words are no good or not so
good? For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a
corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Luke 6:43).
VPP is not Inspired Perfect Textual Criticism

The phrase, inspired perfect textual criticism, is selfcontradictory. Does a Canine Feathered Cat exist? Only in Aesop, one
would think. It goes without saying that an inspired perfect textual
criticism is a new and strange mythical creature of pure fiction.
As explained above, the word inspired is always used of the
original language words of Scripture, not any man or method. All
Scripture (pasa graphe) is God-breathed or inspired by God
(theopneustos) as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16. Inspired Scripture or words is
correct, but there are no inspired men, methods, translations, or textual
criticism.
Furthermore, textual criticism is far from being a perfectly objective
science. The textual critical game is played with man-made rules. I
388
wonder which textual critic on earth would be so foolhardy to claim

infallibility for himself or his rules? A E Housman has judged correctly,
A textual critic engaged upon his business is not at all like Newton
investigating the motions of the planets: he is much more like a dog
hunting for fleas.4
It must be put on record that believers of the 100% inspiration and
the 100% preservation of the Holy Scriptures are not estranged sons of
Benjamin Wilkinson (an SDA), as caricatured by Doug Kutilek, just
because they share with Wilkinson the same belief here about the
Scriptures. Such Kutilek logic and equation, if embraced, would make all
monotheists like Jews and Christians estranged sons of Muslims! I eat
rice, the Malays eat rice, am I therefore a Malay? What bad logic!
Alan Mcgregor of the Bible League (UK), hardly an SDA, agrees
with Wilkinsons belief and defence of the Special Providential
Preservation of the Scriptures (Providentia Extraordinaria or VPP) and
the complete trustworthiness and faithfulness of the KJV despite
Wilkinsons SDAism.5 It defies logic to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Enemies of the KJV and the VPP of Scriptures who castigate
anyone and everyone who is Pro-KJV or Pro-VPP as holders of double
inspiration or inspired textual criticism are theologically ignorant,
blind, immature or hardened.
It is also alleged that VPP has wrecked [sic] havoc and caused
discord among brethren. What a malicious allegation! The Bible teaches
separation (as commanded by the Lord in 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 and 2 Thess 3:615). Is the Biblical doctrine of separation therefore schismatic? Only neoevangelicals and ecumenists would think so. Why are so-called
fundamentalists or separatists singing the same tune?
Has separation caused havoc in the church? If there is havoc, it is
caused by Anti-VPPists who persecute Biblical separatists for their
defence of the good old Reformation Bible and Text against the modern
corrupted texts and cut-up versions of Westcott and Hort. Separation is
sometimes inevitable, and always painful, but to malign as schismatic
those who had separated from the old church with nothing to start a new
church from scratch so that they can believe in the truth and practise their
faith in peace is unjust to say the least. The Rev Dr Timothy Tow
founding father of the Bible-Presbyterian movement in Singapore and
Malaysia, and founding pastor of Life Bible-Presbyterian Churchleft
389
peaceably the old church in 2003 to found a new church, True Life BiblePresbyterian Church, so that he might preach and teach without any
hindrance the 100% perfection of Scripture without any mistake. He
wreaked no havoc in Life Bible-Presbyterian Church which he had
faithfully pastored for over 50 years. He simply refused to bow to the
pressure put on him not to assert that the Bible today is 100% perfect. He
simply wanted to remain true to the Dean Burgon Oath he had taken
together with the faculty and directors of the Far Eastern Bible College,
and to proclaim boldly and unequivocally that the Bible is 100% perfect
without any mistake to the last syllable and letter, 100% inspired and
100% preserved in the original languages. As a Biblical fundamentalist
and disciple of Dr Carl McIntire, he simply wanted to warn against the
errors of Westcott and Hort, and the corruption that is found in the
Alexandrian Text and in the modern perversions of the Bible.6 The Rev
Dr Timothy Tow is ultimately a faithful disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ,
for he believes without equivocation the Lords infallible words of
promise, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33), and he believes the Lord
fulfilled His promise in all the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words
underlying the good old Authorised Version or the King James Bible of
the Great Protestant Reformation.
For many who believe in the Biblical doctrine of the VPP of
Scripture, it has given them great hope and joy. Among brethren who
submit themselves to the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures, there
is only great comfort and assurance to know that Gods Word is presently
infallible and inerrant to the last word, and to know with maximum
certainty the precise location of Gods infallible and inerrant words so
that they might know how to live by Gods every word (Matt 4:4).
Are non-TR, non-KJV believers or users lacking in saving faith?
VPP believers are not so presumptuous as to deem whoever is non-TR or
non-KJV unsaved. Dr Homer A Kent Jr, my highly esteemed NT
professor at Grace Theological Seminary, under whose fine tutelage I
excelled in my NT studies, is a godly, gracious, and gentle man.
However, I cannot agree with his view that the TR and KJV are inferior,
and the VPP of Scripture is non-biblical. Neither can I commend him for
his role in the NIV. Notwithstanding my disagreement with him, I have
never asserted that he is not saved or has lost his salvation. God forbid!
Whether a person is saved or not is for each individual to ascertain for
390
himself based on the Holy ScripturesGods Perfect Yardstick on earth

(Ps 12:6-7, 19:7). Let every man examine himself whether he be in the
faith (2 Cor 13:5). Let every man be judged by Christ and His Gospel (1
Cor 15:1-4). God alone is the perfect Judge (1 Cor 4:3-5, Heb 12:23).
Only God can see the heart (1 Sam 16:7, Ps 139:23-24, John 7:24).
Furthermore, once a person is saved, he cannot be unsaved (Rom 8:2839, Eph 1:13-14). Salvation is of the LORD (Jon 2:9).
Nevertheless, I submit that a denial of VPP would logically lead one
to a denial of VPI for if God did not preserve His words infallibly, how
can we be sure that He had inspired His words inerrantly? What is the use
of VPI without VPP? Anti-VPPists could learn a thing or two from
todays preeminent textual-critical guruBart Ehrmanwho is
throughly consistent and brutally honest, and a happy agnostic to boot!7
Make no mistake about itDr Ehrman lives and breathes textual
criticism! Having attained textual-critical nirvana, it is no wonder that he
is so gnostically high in agnostic bliss. Where is God? Godisnowhere.
Now here or no where? God is no where and so is the Bible. Hows
that for inspired textual criticism?
Notes
For a Biblical defence of the doctrine of the special providential
preservation or verbal plenary preservation of the Holy Scriptures, and the
present infallibility and inerrancy of Gods Word in the Hebrew Masoretic Text
and the Greek Textus Receptus underlying the KJV, go to http://www.febc.edu.sg,
http://www.truthbpc.com, http://www.deanburgonsociety.org, http://
www.biblefortoday.org, http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org.
2
See D A Waite, Bible Inspiration and the KJB
(www.deanburgonsociety.org/PDF/Bible_Inspiration.pdf, accessed August 13,
2006). See also D A Waites reply to Thomas Cassidys slander against BiblePresbyterian pastors in Singapore, namely, S H Tow, Timothy Tow, Jeffrey Khoo,
and Quek Suan Yew, concerning the KJV issue, and Cassidys disagreement with
the DBS when it voted not to use the term inspired with reference to the KJV in
2001 (http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS_Society/waite_reply.htm, accessed
August 13, 2006).
3
A Doctrinal Positional Statement of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church,
http://www.lifebpc.com/aboutlifebpc/doctrinalposition.htm, accessed August 13,
2006.
4
Christopher Kelty, Alfred Housman, and Scott McGill, The Application
of Thought to Textual Criticism by A.E. Housman, Connexions, April 23, 2004,
http://cnx.org/content/m11803/1.2/.
1
391

Alan J Macgregor, Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the
NIV, ESV and NKJV (Wiltshire: The Bible League, 2004), 12-13.
6
Under the leadership of Dr Carl McIntire, the International Council of
Christian Churches (ICCC) in Amsterdam (1998) and Jerusalem (2000) affirmed
the Holy Scriptures to be forever inerrant and infallible, that the O.T. has been
preserved in the Masoretic text and the N.T. in the Textus Receptus, combined
they gave us the complete Word of God. The King James Version in English has
been faithfully translated from these God-preserved manuscripts. (ICCC 16th
World Congress Statements, Far Eastern Beacon [Christmas 2000]: 13). In
1998, the ICCC passed a statement on Bible Versions: BE IT THEREFORE
RESOLVED, that the International Council of Christian Churches, assembled in
the historic English Reformed Church in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, observing
its 50th Anniversary, August 11-15, 1998, urge all Bible-believing churches
worldwide to use only the Authorised or KING JAMES VERSION in their
services and in their teaching ministry and warn the followers of Christ against
these innumerable new bibles which are not translations at all, but revisions
conforming to the personal bias and views of those who have originated them and
who are profiting by commercial sales of such. (ICCC 50 th Anniversary
Conference Statements, Far Eastern Beacon [November 1998]: 1).
7
Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the
Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005).
5
392
44
BRUCE METZGER AND THE CURSE OF
TEXTUAL CRITICISM
Jeffrey Khoo
Bruce Manning Metzger passed away on February 13, 2007 at the
age of 93. He taught New Testament language and literature at Princeton
Theological Seminary (PTS) since 1938. He is known particularly for his
textual criticism of the New Testament. For his textual-critical work,
many are now singing his praises, and extolling him in no uncertain terms
as one of Princetons greatest intellectual ornaments, and an
absolutely preeminent New Testament scholar. Iain Torrance, President
of PTS, called Metzger, the greatest American New Testament critic and
biblical translator of the twentieth century.
Metzgers Influence
Metzger is adored by modern-day textual critics who hail him as a
legend. Here is one anecdote that shows how Metzger is practically
worshipped, Kathleen Maxwell told us in her presentation at the SBL in
Edinburgh that she had phoned Bart Ehrman concerning a special feature
in a manuscript (a red cross marking out the place where there was an
illumination in the exemplar of the MS). Ehrman had told her to phone
his Doktorvater Metzger to see if he had encountered this feature in MSS.
Bart gave her the number and she got Metzger on the line. To us she
remarked, I felt like I was calling God! If this is not blasphemy (cf
Acts 12:20-23), it is surely idolatry! This is the curse of textual
criticismthe glorification of the scholar and his mind, instead of Christ
and His words.
Although Metzger has died, his books and his students live on. One
of his students is bestselling author Bart Ehrman who under Metzgers
tutelage ended up an agnostic. Metzgers mantle has fallen upon Ehrman,
and the latter will no doubt continue the Bible-denying legacy of his
master! Metzgers textbook on textual criticismThe Text of the New
Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restorationhas just been
393
revised and published with Ehrman as co-author and is likely to remain as

the standard for all aspiring textual-critical scholars. Dan Wallace of
Dallas Theological Seminary, a Metzger fan and TR/KJV-basher, wrote,
Metzger-Ehrmans Text of the New Testament remains the standard
handbook on NT textual criticism. Even with its few flaws, this volume
should be read, underlined, digested, and quoted by all students of the NT
text. It rightfully deserves to be within arms reach of all who study the
sacred Greek Scriptures. Wallaces influence at Dallas will no doubt
lead more Dallas students to close textual-critical encounters of the
deadly Metzger-Ehrman kind.
At this juncture, let me offer a Biblical fundamentalist perspective
of Metzgers contributions to New Testament scholarship. Faithful and
true Biblicists ought to be warned that Metzgers scholarship is not one to
be desired nor admired. Metzger could well be a gentle, courteous, and
nice man as described in many a eulogy, but such adulations are no sure
gauge of his biblical and theological orthodoxy. Let us beware lest we fall
into the snare of unbelieving scholarship, and the seduction of worldly
honour and glory. Every biblical scholar or theologue who is committed
to the total infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, and the
authenticity and integrity of the Greek New Testament of the Protestant
Reformation which is the Textus Receptus must know that the adoption
of Metzgers philosophy and methodology will only lead to chronic
uncertainty and perpetual unbelief of the total inspiration and perfect
preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
Metzger Rejected
Let me share with you my experience. Metzgers book on textual
criticismThe Text of the New Testamentwas introduced to me when I
was a student at the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC, 1985-1989). It was
required reading for a couple of New Testament courses that I had to
take. Those lecturers of mine had earned their theological degrees from
top seminaries and universities in the USA and UK. They used and
quoted Metzger favourably. When I myself pursued further studies in the
States, at Grace Theological Seminary in the years 1989-1991, I found a
modernist like Metzger highly regarded in what was a conservative
evangelical and fundamentalist institution. (The Grace Seminary
catalogue of 1989-1991 proudly advertised Bruce Metzger to attract
prospective students. Page 63 of the catalogue contained a handsome
394
Bruce Metzger and the Curse of Textual Criticism
photo of Metzger with this caption, Dr. Bruce Metzger, one of the
dozens of noted authors and theologians who have lectured to Grace
Seminary students.)
By the grace of God, the contents of Metzgers book, in particular
his textual methodology and interpretation of history, never sat well with
me. For instance, one lecturer at FEBC during my student days, quoting
Metzger, taught that the teachings of Jesus were not unique to Him, but
merely an improvement on the existing traditions Jesus had access to in
His day. What an attack on the integrity of our Lord and His Word! Also,
I was taught the so-called eclectic method of textual criticism which
favoured the critical theories of liberal Anglicans, Westcott and Hort. It
made me proud to think that I could judge or emend the Holy Scriptures
based on human reasoning and man-made rules. For over a decade, I had
used the modernistic United Bible Societies Greek New Testament
edited by Metzger et al, but am thankful to the Lord for delivering me out
of ignorance and error through the writings of J W Burgon, E F Hills and
D A Waite. Dr Waite, who is President of the Dean Burgon Society,
visited Singapore in 1992. He spoke at Calvary Pandan BiblePresbyterian Church and FEBC on the textual issue and defended the
KJV and its underlying texts. The glory of God and the logic of faith then
led the Rev Dr Timothy Tow, the principal of FEBC and his faculty, to
see the wonderful truth of the verbal and plenary preservation of the Holy
Scriptures (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35). FEBC now requires the use of
only the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus
Receptus published by the Trinitarian Bible Society in its biblical
language and literature classes. The KJV continues to be the only
acceptable version for use in its English Bible courses.
Metzgers Myth
Many an evangelical textual critic are impressed by the awesome
footnotes of Metzgers scholarly writings. Metzgers texts and his
annotated footnotes are said to be indispensable stuff in scholarly textcritical research. O, how we must be wary! Metzgers Bible of textual
criticism is filled with unbelief and deception. One example of deception
is the myth Metzger concocted to question the authenticity of the
Trinitarian verse called the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7). Metzger in
his textbookThe Text of the New Testamentpontificated, Erasmus
promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in
395
future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained

the passage. At length such a copy was foundor was made to order!
For decades, Metzgers story has been parroted by anti-preservationists,
TR/KJV opponents as if it was gospel truth. Erasmian expert, Henk J de
Jonge of Leiden University, in his paper on Erasmus and the Comma
Johanneum has convincingly proven that Metzgers story on Erasmus is
utterly baseless. This was no small embarrassment to Metzger and all his
followers. Metzger, however, did not remove his misleading story about
Erasmus in subsequent editions of his book, but placed a corrigendum in
a footnote on a distant page (p291) in his third, enlarged edition
confessing that what he had written on page 101 about Erasmus and 1
John 5:7 needs to be corrected.
Metzgers Ecumenism
Let it be known that Metzger was a fervent promoter and leader of
the ecumenical movement. The ecumenical New Revised Standard
Version (NRSV) of 19771990 was Metzgers baby. Without Metzger
there would be no NRSV. Metzger saw no better way to promote
ecumenism than to produce a Bible that would unite both Protestant and
Catholic elements. Metzger was actively involved in the translation of the
Apocrypha and even expanded it to include 3rd and 4th Maccabees and
Psalm 151. He did this to please the Roman Catholic Church and the
Greek Orthodox Church. In 1976, he personally presented the ecumenical
edition of the RSV to Demetrios I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople and titular head of the several Orthodox Churches. In
1993, Metzger presented a Catholic edition of the NRSV to Pope John
Paul II at the Vatican. Why did he do all this? PTS President, Iain
Torrance, tells us why, Bruce Metzger understood and was passionate
about the significance of biblical translation for ecumenical dialogue.
It was important to him that Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and
Protestant Christians be able to have recourse to a common biblical text
as an instrument of unity.
Is such an ecumenical ethos shared by Biblical fundamentalists and
separatists? If not, why are fundamentalist pastors and scholars from Bob
Jones University, Central, Detroit, Temple and other fundamental Baptist
Seminaries which believe and practise separation commending and
recommending Metzger, his ecumenical RSV/NRSV and the many
396
Bruce Metzger and the Curse of Textual Criticism
modern versions that stem from his corrupt Greek Text? Is this apostasy,
hypocrisy, compromise, or what?
Metzger Defeated
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor
13:8). Despite the evangelical/fundamentalist compromise today, and the
denial of Gods special providence in the days of the Great Protestant
Reformation in the restoration of His true Church and reception of His
true Word, the promise of God holds true for He has supernaturally
preserved His inspired Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New
Testament words on which the King James Biblethe Reformation
Bibleis based, and has surely raised up in these last days a remnant
of Biblicists from all over the world who remain true to the spirit of
the Reformation, who refuse to kowtow to the ecumenical idolatry
and textual-critical scholarolatry of this postmodern and neo-deistic
age. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap (Gal 6:7).
397
45
THE BLASPHEMY AND DECEPTION OF
THE DA VINCI CODE
Jeffrey Khoo and Quek Suan Yew
Caveat
Satan is a liar and a deceiver (John 8:44, Rev 12:9). Dan Browns
bestselling novelThe Da Vinci Code (Bantam Press, 2003; 593
pages)is the latest Satanic attack against our Lord Jesus Christ and His
inerrant Word. Brown seductively weaves a highly imaginative story in a
vain attempt to prove that the Jesus believed by Christians today is not
the same Jesus who lived in the first century. According to The Da Vinci
Code, the true historical Jesus was only an ordinary man and not God at
all.
The book is a most seductive and deceptive novel replete with
hidden codes, murder, sex and intrigue. It seeks to debunk the common
notion that the Holy Grail is the Cup of the Last Supper of Christ. The
author asserts that the painting by Leonardo Da Vinci of the Last Supper
reveals that the Holy Grail refers actually to Mary Magdalene who he
says is the wife of Jesus Christ. Mary Magdalene is said to be pregnant
when she was with Christ at His resurrection. Not only that, this lineage
of Christ and Mary Magdalene continues to this very day. This is
blasphemy in the highest degree.
Browns attacks on Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures are not
new. His blasphemous and deceptive views have been propounded for
decades within the four walls of modernistic universities and liberal
seminaries. Brown distills the academic jargon and weaves the views of
liberalism into a mystery novel for the general audience, and for the
money no less.
The Blasphemy of The Da Vinci Code

In his book, Brown attacks the inspiration, preservation, and
canonicity of the Scriptures. The Bible he says, is a product of man,
398
The Blasphemy and Deception of The Da Vinci Code
Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man
created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved
through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never
had a definitive version of the book. [T]housands of documents
already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the
history books, Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible,
which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christs human traits and
embellished those gospels that made him godlike. The earlier gospels
were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.
As far as Brown is concerned, the historical and factual gospels
have been destroyed in the 4th century. What remains today are the
spurious and fictitious Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that
promote a mythical, godlike Jesus. So, all this while, Christians have
been reading the wrong Gospels and believing in a false Jesus!
Truth of Gods Perfection
Does Browns unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God
forbid; yea, let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
How do we know that the Bible today is truly the Word of God,
perfect and without mistakes? Simply because God says so! The
declaration, Thus saith the LORD, or Hear the Word of the LORD,
or The LORD spake saying, appears over 3,000 times in the Bible.
Be not deceived, the Bible is altogether Gods Word, not mans word.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (theopneustos, literally,
God-breathed) and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Tim 3:16-17). The Bible was
written over a span of 1,500 years by more than 40 different writers, and
despite all its diversity, its miraculous unity is obvious. It goes without
saying that though the Bible has many writers, it has but one Author
God Himself. That every one of the OT prophecies concerning Christs
first coming has been fulfilled precisely proves the Bibles authenticity
(eg, Isa 7:14 cf Matt 1:22-23).
How do we know that the Scriptures that we have today are the true
ones, and not those that have been lost for over a thousand years? We
know this because God promised to preserve His words perfectly and
perpetually. Psalm 12:6-7 says, The words of the LORD are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep
399
Jesus Himself promised, For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled (Matt 5:18). Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away (Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33). The
Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
The true Bible can be easily identified. It is the one that has an
unbroken lineage, fully and continuously preserved by God down through
the ages, and always in the possession of His people. Thus, the perfect
and true Scriptures are not in the lately found Alexandrian manuscripts
underlying the modern corrupt versions (which incidentally present a less
than divine Jesus preferred by Brown), nor are they in the newly
discovered Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi codices (Gnostic
manuscripts from Egypt) as mentioned by Brown, but in the longexisting, time-tested and Christ-honouring Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
underlying the good old Authorised Version.
Certainty of Christian Conviction
How can we be absolutely sure that the Scriptures we hold in our
hands today are truly the infallible and inerrant Word of God? Faith is the
answer! But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them
that diligently seek him (Heb 11:6). The logic of faith is the key to
certainty. God says it, that settles it, we believe it! We do not see to
believe; we believe in order to see.
The Apostle Peter told the Church to trust in a more sure word of
prophecythe Holy Scripturesas written by eyewitnesses: Knowing
this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man (and certainly
not by the will of Constantine): but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Pet 1:20-21).
If we are truly born again and the Spirit of God dwells within us, we
cannot but know and believe the Truth of Gods Word. The Holy Spirit is
the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him
not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and
shall be in you (John 14:17). Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is
come, he will guide you into all truth He shall glorify me: for he shall
receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you (John 16:13-14). But the
400
anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not
that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all
things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall
abide in him (1 John 2:27).
Historical and scientific evidences that prove the Scriptures may be
helpful, but ultimately, the only basis of our faith and practice must be the
Scriptures and the Scriptures alone. The Perfect Bible (and we have it
today and know where it is) is our supreme final authority. Sola
Scriptura!
In The Da Vinci Code, it is Satans voice one hears. True Christians
will not follow. Jesus said, My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they shall follow me: and I give unto them eternal life (John 10:2728).
We have experienced the good news and resurrection power of
Christ in our life, and we cannot deny that our Lord and Saviour is indeed
100% God and 100% Man, and that His Word is 100% inspired and
100% preserved.
It goes without saying that The Da Vinci Code is truly Fiction. The
Bible, on the other hand, is purely Fact. We have a Perfect Canon and a
Perfect Text. May we never add to it, nor subtract from it (Rev 22:18-19),
but love it and obey it (1 John 2:3-6)! If the foundations be destroyed,
what can the righteous do? (Ps 11:3).1
The Deception of The Da Vinci Code

The Da Vinci Code is a Satanic masterpiece. It is utterly deceptive,
and particularly so in Chapter 55. In this chapter, one finds the two
talking snakes, Teabing and Langdon, seducing Sophie with their
sophistry. Alas, the helpless lass is mesmerised, and the serpentine duo go
for the jugular with their venom of lies.
Deception #1: Da Vincis Fresco Tells the Truth, Not the Bible
The Da Vinci Code assumes that Leonardo was telling the truth
concerning who Jesus was and what happened in His life. Teabing
pontificates, In fact, Da Vinci painted the true Grail. At the end of the
chapter, Teabing again presses the point that Da Vincis fresco is truthful
and not the Bible, You will be shocked to learn what anomalies Da Vinci
included here that most scholars either do not see or simply choose to
401
ignore. This fresco [of the Last Supper], in fact, is the entire key to the
Holy Grail mystery.
Refutation #1
It must be said that Da Vinci, born in 1452 and died in 1519, was
not an eyewitness to the Last Supper. How can his painting then be
regarded as an authoritative depiction of that event? We should rather
trust in eyewitness accounts. Matthew and John who were there recorded
what happened during the Last Supper in their respective Gospels. The
truth is not in the painting of Da Vinci, but in the testimonies of Matthew
and John, and of Peter and Paul as found in Mark and Luke, who wrote
under divine inspiration (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21).
One proof that Da Vincis fresco is historically unreliable is that he
painted Jesus and His disciples dining at a long and high table with some
sitting down and others standing up. The people in those days did not
have their meals in such a way. In those days, they had their meals in a
reclining posture. This fact is accurately reported in the Four Gospels
where we find Jesus and His disciples reclining on mattresses around a
low table during the Last Supper (cf John 13:23, 25).
Deception #2: If You Believe in the Bible, You Must be Stupid
In order to cause Sophie to doubt, Teabing made her read a couple
of Da Vincis sayings that demean believers of the supernatural and
miraculous. Quotation of Da Vinci #1 reads, Many have made a trade of
delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude. In other
words, Sophie is made to think that anyone who believes that the Bible is
a supernatural God-given Book, and that the miracles recorded therein
are true, must be simple-minded and stupid.
Refutation #2
People ought to realise that Da Vinci is but a creature, and not the
Creator. Da Vinci is dead, but Jesus is alive (1 Cor 15:1-20). As such, it is
not what Da Vinci says in his paintings that we should worry about, but
what Jesus the risen Lord says in His Word.
Who are the fools in Gods eyes? They are those who deny His
existence and His miracles. Twice in the Psalms, God says, The fool
hath said in his heart, There is no God (Pss 14:1, 53:1). The judgement
of such fools as spoken of in Romans 1:18-22 applies to Teabing,
Langdon, and not forgetting the author Brown himself, For the wrath of
402
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness

of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may
be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when
they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. The truly blind are
they who deny the miracle of creation, even the Creator Godthe Lord
Jesus ChristHimself (John 1:3, Col 1:16).
Deception #3: If You Believe in the Bible, You Must be Blind
Quotation of Da Vinci #2 states, Blinding ignorance does mislead
us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes! Teabing could be quoting Da
Vinci out of context. Whatever the case may be, Teabing is trying to tell
Sophie, Dont be blind! Dont be misled! Stop believing in the Bible!
Stop following Christ!
Refutation #3
Da Vinci says Blinding ignorance does mislead us, and so it does.
Jesus speaks against blinding ignorance as well, and calls on all to seek
and know the truth. Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye
upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the
unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he
will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly
pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my
ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts
(Isa 55:6-9).
From where do we seek the Lord? Seek ye out of the book of the
LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail (Isa 34:16). Why the book of
the Lord? Because The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes
of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the
LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes (Ps 19:7-8).
How should we seek the Lord? We should seek Him by faith, But
without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God
must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently
403
seek him (Heb 11:6). We do not see in order to believe, we believe in

order to see. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you
free (John 8:32). We should seek Him with great reverence, The fear of
the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7). The fear of the
LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is
understanding (Prov 9:10).
Deception #4: The Bible is a Product of Man, Not of God
Teabing tells Sophie, The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not
of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it
as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through
countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a
definitive version of the book. More than eighty gospels were
considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few were
chosen for inclusionMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them.
Teabing lies to Sophie, The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by
the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great. Constantine
commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels
that spoke of Christs human traits and embellished those gospels that
made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and
burned.
Refutation #4
It is not true that the Four GospelsMatthew, Mark, Luke, and
Johnwere 4 th century inventions of Constantine and the Nicaean
Council. The Four Gospels were written in AD 40-50 shortly after Christ
rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. The Early Church Fathers
Papias (in AD 110) and Irenaeus (in AD 180)mentioned them by name
and affirmed their Apostolic origins. It is thus not the over 80 gospels that
Teabing mentioned that were the early and authentic Gospels but the Four
that we have in the Canonical Scriptures today, totally inspired and
entirely preserved to this day.
It must be pointed out that the over 80 gospels that Teabing regards
as authentic do not paint Jesus as a mere mortal at all, but super-divine in
a fairy-tale manner that can only come from the corrupt imaginations of
unregenerate men. As a matter of fact, these false gospels deify Mary
more than they do Jesus which eventually led to the Mary-worship that
we see in the Roman Catholic Church today. It is no wonder that Gods
people have always rejected those 80 gospels as spurious. A born-again,
404
Spirit-indwelt Christian (John 14:16-17, 1 John 2:27) when reading about

the boyhood of Jesus in these false gospels can easily tell that they are
myths and not truth (read The Lost Books of the Bible, especially 1
Infancy 14-15, about Jesus being bitten by a mad and demonised Judas,
and Jesus being a proud and boastful show-off).
Teabings claims that Constantine (1) was a lifelong pagan who
was baptized on his deathbed, and that he (2) financed a new Bible in
AD 327 to consolidate his power as emperor, are lies. The truth is: (1)
Constantine lived from AD 285-337, and became a Christian in AD
312i.e. 25 years before his death! (2) The NT Canon as we know it
today existed since the first century. By Gods special providence, it was
the Council of Carthage of AD 397 and not the Council of Nicaea AD
327 that settled the NT Canon; this happened 60 years after Constantines
death!
Brown says that the New Testament Canon is a human fabrication
and thus should be dismissed or replaced. This attack must be refuted. It
is vital that Biblical Christianity holds fast to the ancient Biblical Canon
without change. The word canon refers to a measuring rod by which
things are kept straight. It is used metaphorically in 2 Corinthians 10:1218 to designate Gods rule over our lives. The Apostle Paul in 2
Corinthians 10:12-18 wrote, For we dare not make ourselves of the
number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but
they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves
among themselves, are not wise. But we will not boast of things without
our measure, but according to the measure of the rule (canon) which God
hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. For we stretch
not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you:
for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:
Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other mens
labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be
enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, To preach the gospel in
the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another mans line (canon) of
things made ready to our hand. But he that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the
Lord commendeth. The canonicity of the Bible is thus the quality or
character of the Scriptures by which they are our rule of faith and life, as
the infallible Word of God. As such, the Biblical Canon constitutes the
divine authority of the Holy Scriptures.
405
The Church did not make the words of man to become the words of
God as Brown asserts. The Word of God stands on its own, and declares
itself to be the Word of God. The Bible is its own infallible authority.
There is no higher authority than the Word of God itself. This is an
acceptable tautological argument. In defense of this truth, J O Buswell
correctly observed that all factual existential statements may be regarded
as circular. Why is a fact a fact, and why is it regarded as a fact? The only
answer is, because it is a fact.2 The Westminster Confession of Faith
likewise states, The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought
to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man
or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the author thereof;
and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.3
The Word of God was canonised the moment it was written. The
canonicity of Scripture finds its basis in the inspiration of Scripture. 2
Timothy 3:16-17 says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished
unto all good works. The Church at that time received the canonical
words of the Apostles as the very words of God and not the words of
man. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 states, For this cause also thank we God
without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye
heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the
word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. When
heresies like Marcionism and Montanism arose, the pastors of the early
church realised the need to identify the Canon so that their parishioners
may know for sure the names and the number of the divinely inspired
books. The Council of Laodicea (AD 363) listed the present number of
27 New Testament books. Athanasius also mentioned 27 in his Easter
letter of AD 367 and these were recognised as the Canon at the Council
of Hippo (AD 393) and the Third Synod of Carthage (AD 397). Since
then, the New Testament Canon of 27 books was confirmed and fixed.
The New Testament pseudepigrapha were all rejected as spurious and not
as Holy Scripture. The identification of the Canon is the result of the
special providential work of God through His Spirit-guided Church (John
16:13-14).
But Teabing says that the Scriptures evolved, and there is no such
thing as a definitive version of the book. This is nonsense. The biblical
doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary
406
Preservation (VPP) of the Scriptures tells us that we have an absolutely

perfect and definitive Bible today as found in the infallible and inerrant
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures underlying the Authorised King James
Version. E F Hills rightly said that the logic of faith is the key to such a
certainty, You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed
according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text,
the Textus Receptus and the King James Version.4
Deception #5: Jesus was Only a Man, and Not God at All
Teabing says, Jesus Christ was a historical figure a great and
powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal. Jesus establishment
as the Son of God was officially proposed and voted on by the Council
of Nicaea. A relatively close vote at that. Many scholars claim that
the early Church literally stole Jesus from His original followers,
hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of
divinity, and using it to expand their own power.
Refutation #5
The Council of Nicaea was convened to hear the case of Arius, a
priest from Alexandria, who taught that Jesus was only half God and not
fully God. Arius said that Jesus (1) was a creature and thus not the
Creator, (2) had a beginning and thus not eternal, (3) was different from
and not the same as God Himself. But God raised up a defender of the
faith in Athanasius. In the Council of Nicaea, Athanasius argued from the
Scriptures that the Lord Jesus Christ was fully God and fully Man (John
1:1, 14; Col 2:9; 1 Tim 3:16), eternally begotten of the Father, not created
(John 1:3, 3:16, 18, 10:30; 1 John 4:9). Arius was declared a heretic. The
vote was hardly close315 for Athanasius and only 3 for Arius. Arius
was defrocked and excommunicated.
Furthermore, Teabings claim that the deity of Christ was a New
Testament invention is not true at all! It was not the New Testament that
first spoke of the deity of Christ but the Old Testament. We have also a
more sure word of prophecy (2 Pet 1:19). The Old Testament prophetic
Scripture had already made mention of a coming Messiah who would be
none other than God Himself. Isaiah 7:14 was one such prophecy,
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Jesus
Himself fulfilled this prophecy in 5 BC as announced by the angel
Gabriel. Jesus was Immanuel, God with us (Matt 1:22-23). It is
407
significant to note that Isaiahs prophecy of the virgin-born Son of God

was given 750 years before Jesus came. It goes without saying that the lie
that Jesus was never God but made God by the Council of Nicaea in AD
325 was not Constantines invention, but Teabings.
Today, Arius teaching is found in a cult called the Jehovahs
Witnesses, and in the corrupt modern versions of the Bible (like the NIV)
that are based on the Alexandrian text. It would be no surprise if Arius
and his followers had altered the inspired text to create their own text to
undermine the deity of Christ. It is indeed troubling to note that in the
NIV, 1 Timothy 3:16 should read falsely, He appeared in a body, which
undermines His deity and humanity. The true reading is, God was
manifest in the flesh (as accurately and faithfully translated from the
original by the KJV) which tells us that Christ is Theanthropos100%
God and 100% Man. Deception abounds today not only in the cults that
claim to be Christian, but also in the modern versions that claim to be
Holy Bible.
Warning
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with
a hot iron (1 Tim 4:1-2). In the face of such dangers, what must
Christians do? The Apostle Paul exhorts, Take heed unto thyself, and
unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save
thyself, and them that hear thee (1 Tim 4:16).
May the Lord protect His Church from falling into Satans trap of
deception.
Notes
For further study, read Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, A Theology for
Every Christian: Knowing God and His Word (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible
College Press, 1998), downloadable for free.
2
J O Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1962), 1:196.
3
Westminster Confession of Faith, I:4-5.
4
E F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian
Research Press, 1984), 220. See also Jeffrey Khoo, A Plea for a Perfect Bible,
The Burning Bush 9 (2003): 1-15.
1
408
46
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY AND THE KJV
A Critique of From the Mind of God
to the Mind of Man
Jeffrey Khoo
From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man (231 pages)published
in 1999 by Ambassador-Emerald International (Greenville SC, USA, and
Belfast, N Ireland), and edited by James B Williams is the latest book to
attack KJV-only advocates. KJV-only advocates (1) believe the King
James or Authorised Version (KJV/AV) to be the most faithful,
trustworthy, and accurate translation of the English Bible available today,
and (2) contend that the English-speaking Church should use it alone. A
number of books have already been written against the KJV by
modernists and neo-evangelicals. From the Mind of God to the Mind of
Man, however, is written by fundamentalists. Sadly, instead of defending
God and His Word, we find fundamentalists singing the same antibiblical tune of anti-fundamentalists. Sounding like modernists and neoevangelicals, Williams scoffed at KJV-defending fundamentalists, calling
them unqualified, immature, and a cancerous sore (4,7). Is there
not treachery within the camp?
James B Williams, the general editor of the book, is on the Bob
Jones University (BJU) Board of Trustees. The 19 who contributed to the
book are professors, graduates, or friends of BJU. It is reported that Dr
Bob Jones IIIpresident of BJUhighly recommended the book in the
1999 World Congress of Fundamentalists, calling it the most significant
book for fundamentalism in this century. It sold like hot cakes. A sad day
for fundamentalism it was. By such an endorsement, BJU has kowtowed
to the god of humanistic scholarship. From the Mind of God to the Mind
of Man exalts mans mind over Gods. It promotes unregenerate and
modernistic scholarship, and downgrades spiritual and biblical
discernment.
409
Now, let us examine the book chapter by chapter.
Introduction: The Issue We Face by James B Williams

From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man seeks to address the KJV
controversy within fundamentalism. According to Williams, the view that
the KJV should be the only translation used by fundamentalists has
created unnecessary confusion and division. [and] is doing more
damage to the cause of Christ among Fundamentalists than any other
controversies (2).
Williamss charge that KJV-only advocates have created
unnecessary confusion and division is false. The only agenda KJV-only
advocates have is to call the Church back to the traditional and preserved
text of Scriptures as found in the KJV and its underlying Hebrew and
Greek texts over against the plethora of modern and corrupted versions
(or perversions) of the Bible. Why should fundamentalists who should be
on the Lords side be angry with those from within their camp who refuse
to bow the knee to the modern Baal of Textual Criticism and side with
modern Balaams like Westcott and Hort? Williams is upset over the
militancy of KJV-only advocates, but is this not what the Lord requires of
His Church militant? When false teachers seek to destroy Gods Word
and His Church, how can Gods people not be filled with righteous
indignation and speak out passionately in defence of both the Living and
Written Word? How can we not be like loyal David who declared, Do
not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those
that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them
mine enemies (Ps 139:21-22)? Westcott and Hort and their cohorts are
enemies of Christ and His Word. The prophet Jehus words to
compromising Jehoshaphat apply equally to BJU, Shouldest thou help
the ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? (2 Chr 19:1-2). The Bob
Jones sanhedrin is telling KJV-only fundamentalists to shut up. But we
reply with the Apostle Peter, We ought to obey God rather than men
(Acts 5:29).
The biblical voice of KJV-only advocates is one and is clear, namely
this: We believe and teach that the Texts which are closest to the original
autographs of the Bible are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the
Old Testament, and the Traditional Greek Text for the New Testament
underlying the King James Version. And we believe and teach that
410
Bob Jones University and the KJV

the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English Bible is a
true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved
Texts (ie, the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and Traditional Greek
Text underlying the KJV), which in our time has no equal among all of the
other English Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their
translation task that we can without apology hold up the Authorised Version
of 1611 and say This is the Word of God! while at the same time realising
that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language
Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture (The
Dean Burgon Society, Articles of Faith, Section II.A).
Wherein lies the confusion? The confusion is not caused by KJVonly advocates but by fundamentalists who blur the issue by being
neutral, claiming to be balanced (9). What is BJUs official position on
Westcott and Hort, and modern versions? David L Turner in his book
Standing Without Apology (BJU Press, 1997)on the history of BJU
wrote,
The position of the schools Bible Department was especially important.
The statement authored by Stewart Custer and Marshall Neal was approved
by the entire Bible faculty. the department believed that the text based
upon the Alexandrian manuscripts is, as a whole, superior to the text based
upon manuscripts of the Middle Ages. They concluded the statement by
saying, Christians should be free to choose and use either of these texts
and still work together in harmony to teach and preach the Word of God to
those who are without it.
In keeping with the Universitys commitment to balance, it is interesting to
note that among the Bob Jones University graduate school Bible faculty,
there are some who hold to the superiority of the Majority Text and others
who hold to the Westcott and Hort Alexandrian Text. None of the Bible
faculty accepts the Textus Receptus of Erasmus as superior to either the
Majority or Alexandrian texts.
BJU adopts a neutral position on the Bible versions. This yes and no,
neither for nor against, both-and equivocation of BJU is the cause of the
confusion and division within fundamentalism. Was it not middle-of-theroad neo-evangelicalism that created the confusion that is plaguing
Christendom today? In his excellent treatiseThe Tragedy of
CompromiseErnest Pickering, quoting W B Riley, rightly warned
against those in-betweenites. Sadly, on the KJV issue, Pickering has
become an in-betweenite himself. He contributed to the confusion by
writing a congratulatory preface to this so-called balanced (read
411
compromising) book. John Ashbrook warned others against the dangers

of New Neutralism in his book by the same title. Like Pickering he too
succumbed to the Neutralism he so ably exposed by contributing a
neutral chapter to a neutral tome. It is this neutral attitude of BJU that is
causing the confusion within fundamentalism! Dr Dell Johnson of
Pensacola Theological Seminary has rightly called this neutralism and
compromise the leaven in fundamentalism. Our plea to our fellow
fundamentalists is one they know well: Be ye not unequally yoked
together with Westcott and Hort!
Our Final Authority: Revelation, Inspiration, Inerrancy,

Infallibility, and Authority of the Bible by Randolph Shaylor
Shaylor has done well to argue for the plenary and verbal inspiration
of the Bible (19). He believes the Bible to be absolutely inspired in every
detail, and without error in all matters (23). The scriptural texts he quoted
as proof are the two classic passages on biblical inspiration: 2 Tim 3:1516, and 2 Pet 1:21.
However, the shortcoming of Shaylors chapter is his failure to
address the doctrine of biblical preservation. Many KJV-opponents deny
the existence of this doctrine. Shaylor did not deny this doctrine, but he
does seem confused over what preservation entails. In his brief twosentenced paragraph on The Preservation of Revelation, he states his
belief that God preserves His Word, then confuses it with the way He
does it. Shaylor wrote, God has made His revelation available to others
than those to whom it was immediately given . How? by
preserving His truth in written form (16). This is a fine statement
(though it would have been better if he had cited some proof-texts). God
has indeed promised that His Holy Scriptures would not only be
presented in all its purity to the Church then, but also to the Church now
(Ps 12:6-7). But Shaylor reveals his confusion over preservation by
saying that God guaranteed the veracity of these writings by using the
special method of imparting His truth that we know as inspiration. God
did not promise to preserve His Word by means of inspiration! This last
statement should be placed under the section on inspiration, not
preservation. Inspiration is miraculous, but preservation is providential.
Inspiration is a non-repeatable work of God in history; preservation is a
continuous work of God throughout history. I would therefore rephrase
Shaylors statement this way, God imparted His truth without error in
412
written form by using the special method known as divine inspiration,

and guaranteed the veracity of these writings by means of another
special method called providential preservation.
Shaylors confusion over the twin doctrines of inspiration and
preservation is compounded by his erroneous view that Gods inspiration
of His Word resides only in the autographs (ie, the authors actual
scripts), and not the copies (regardless of whether it is a particular
manuscript or a group of manuscripts) (22). What Shaylor is trying to tell
us is that we can only be absolutely sure that the autographs are infallible
and inerrant. Only the autographs are inspired, the copies are not. If what
Shaylor says is true, then the Church today is bereft of the inspired
Scriptures since we no longer have the autographs, only the copies. From
the Mind of God to the Mind of Man touts itself as a laymans guide to
how we got our Bible. But its rejection of the doctrine of biblical
preservation, telling us that only the autographs are inspired, undermines
the laymans confidence on the Bible, and cast doubts in his mind over
whether he has indeed the pure Word of God. Is not this agnostic view of
our Scriptures today a stumbling block to the layman? The Lords
warning applies, But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which
believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about
his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Matt 18:6).
Shaylor went on to argue that nowhere does the Bible teach or even
imply that the copies of Scripture are inerrantly and infallibly inspired
(22). If Shaylor is right, then Jesus is wrong. Jesus testified that the OT
Scripturesthe Law and the Prophetsthat He had (which were copies
and not the autographs) were infallible and inerrant to the jot and tittle,
and must all be fulfilled (Matt 5:17-18). Jesus knew full well that His
Word was not only divinely inspired, but also divinely preserved. This is
clearly taught in Ps 12:6-7,
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever.
Shaylor cites B B Warfield to support his view that inspiration

extends only to the original autographs (25). We respect Warfield for his
many conservative views, but he was wrong to limit the inspiration of the
Bible only to the original autographs; inspiration should extend to the
apographs (ie, copies) as well. Dr Edward F Hills, in his bookThe King
James Version Defendedexplains why,
413

If the doctrine of divine inspiration of the Old and New Testament
Scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the providential preservation of
these Scriptures must also be a true doctrine. It must be that down through
the centuries God has exercised a special, providential control over the
copying of the Scriptures and the preservation and use of the original text
have been available to Gods people in every age. God must have done this,
for if He gave the Scriptures to His Church by inspiration as the perfect and
final revelation of his will, then it is obvious that He would not allow this
revelation to disappear or undergo any alteration of its fundamental
character
if the doctrines of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of
these Scriptures are true doctrines, then the textual criticism of the New
Testament is different from that of the uninspired writings of antiquity. The
textual criticism of any book must take into account the conditions under
which the original manuscripts were written and also under which the
copies of these manuscripts were made and preserved. But if the doctrines
of the divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Scriptures are
true, then THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS WERE
WRITTEN UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UNDER THE
INSPIRATION OF GOD, AND THE COPIES WERE MADE AND
PRESERVED UNDER SPECIAL CONDITIONS, UNDER THE
SINGULAR CARE AND PROVIDENCE OF GOD.
In another bookBelieving Bible StudyHills warned,

If we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and defend the
New Testament text in the same way that we defend the texts of other
ancient books, then we are following the logic of unbelief. For the special,
providential preservation of the holy Scriptures is a fact and an important
fact. Hence when we ignore this fact and deal with the text of the New
Testament as we would with the text of other books, we are behaving as
unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential preservation
of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an important
fact, not important enough to be considered when dealing with the New
Testament text. But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not
important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures
important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special
providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place?
And if the Scriptures are not infallibly inspired, how do we know that the
Gospel message is true? And if the Gospel message is not true, how do we
know that Jesus is the Son of God?
It is a dangerous error therefore to ignore the special, providential
preservation of the holy Scriptures and to seek to defend the New
414

Testament text in the same way in which we would defend the texts of other
ancient books. For the logic of this unbelieving attitude is likely to lay hold
upon us and cast us down into a bottomless pit of uncertainty. ...
The Bible teaches us that faith is the foundation of reason. Through faith we
understand (Heb. 11:3). By faith we lay hold on God as He reveals Himself
in the holy Scriptures and make Him the starting point of all our thinking. ...
Like the Protestant Reformers therefore we must take God as the starting
point of all our thinking. We must begin with God. Very few Christians,
however, do this consistently. For example, even when a group of
conservative Christian scholars meet for the purpose of defending the
Textus Receptus and the King James Version, you will find that some of
them want to do this in a rationalistic, naturalistic way. Instead of beginning
with God, they wish to begin with facts viewed apart from God, with details
concerning the New Testament manuscripts which must be regarded as true
(so they think) no matter whether God exists or not. ...
the King James Version, in other words, to the common faith.
Not only was Warfields definition of biblical inspiration faulty, he

was also wrong to promote the destructive textual critical theories of
Westcott and Hort. Many fundamentalists have unwittingly imbibed the
415
poison of Westcott and Hort through Warfield. BJU and other

fundamentalist schools like Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary,
Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Detroit Baptist Theological
Seminary, Maranatha Baptist Bible College, Northland Baptist Bible
College, and Temple Baptist Seminary (all listed on page iii), have all
been infected by the Westcott and Hort leaven.
It will not do for Christians to affirm biblical inspiration, yet at the
same time deny biblical preservation. Dr Timothy Tow has rightly said,
We believe the preservation of Holy Scripture and its Divine inspiration
stand in the same position as providence and creation. If Deism teaches a
Creator who goes to sleep after creating the world is absurd, to hold to the
doctrine of inspiration without preservation is equally illogical. Without
preservation, all the inspiration, God-breathing into the Scriptures, would
be lost. But we have a Bible so pure and powerful in every word and it is so
because God has preserved it down through the ages.
We affirm with the Westminster divines that our Old and New
Testaments, being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular
care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical
(WCF 1:8).
Shaylor concludes his chapter by stating in bold, We have the
Word of God (28). But the question remains, which and where? His
idea of inspiration, that only the original autographs are inspired, which
we do not have today, has left us without a Bible we can say with utmost
confidence, This is the Word of God, inspired, inerrant, intact. If we
follow Shaylors logic with regard to inspiration, we would not be able to
say, We have the Word of God.
Canonization and Apocrypha by Paul W Downey

Downey provides a succinct, factual account of the process of
biblical canonisation. However, Downeys chapter is skewed by his
comment that the KJV of 1611 followed the Council of Trent, not the
Reformers, in its treatment of the Apocrypha (45). By so saying,
Downey gives the distorted impression that the KJV translators had
considered the Apocrypha as part of inspired Scripture. This cannot be
further from the truth. It is without question, that the translators accepted
these apocryphal books only for their historical value. They in no wise
considered them to be inspired Scripture. Alexander McClure, in his
416
bookThe Translators Revivedgave seven reasons why they rejected

the Apocrypha:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by
the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the
Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first
four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not
only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two
Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three
different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for
the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and
magical incantation.
Downey has thus unfairly portrayed the KJV as a Popish Bible

because it included the Apocrypha. He cast a slur against the KJV by
saying that the Puritans and Separatists rejected the KJV in favour of the
Geneva Bible because the latter excluded the Apocrypha (45-6). But this
is not the whole truth. Dr Errol F Rhodes and Dr Liana Lupas who edited
The Translators to the Reader: The Original Preface of the King James
Version Revisedpresent a more accurate picture
The books of the Apocrypha were included in the King James Version from
the first as a matter of course, as they had been in all versions of the English
Bible from the time of Wycliffe (c. 1384), including the Calvinist Geneva
Bible of 1560. The deliberate omission of the Apocrypha from an
English Bible is first noted in the 1640 edition of the Geneva Bible, Not
until the nineteenth century, however, did the omission of the Apocrypha in
Protestant Bibles become normal.
The Protestants in those days were obviously a victim of their times.

Although the Apocrypha was found in Reformation Bibles (including the
Geneva) since Wycliffe, it is clear that all of the Reformers opposed the
Roman Catholic Church, and by the same token, rejected the Apocrypha
as spurious. The feelings of the KJV translators, some of whom were
Puritans, must necessarily be the same as those who produced the
417
Westminster Confession of Faith (1645). In no uncertain terms, the

Westminster divines wrote,
The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are
no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the
Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than
other human writings (WCF 1:3).
It is also significant to note that when it came to translating the

Apocrypha, the KJV translators did not care very much for it. Scrivener
wrote, It is well known to Biblical scholars that the Apocrypha received
very inadequate attention from the revisers of 1611 and their
predecessors, so that whole passages remain unaltered from the racy,
spirited, rhythmical, but hasty, loose and most inaccurate version
made by Coverdale for the Bible of 1536.
What can we say about this bookFrom the Mind of God to the
Mindwhich aims to present a balanced view on the KJV issue? So
far, this reviewer gets the sense that instead of presenting a balanced
view, the writers are bent on finding fault with the KJV.
Lets Meet the Manuscripts by Minnick

Mark Minnick, in his chapter, dealt with the so-called science of
textual criticism. He goes to great lengths to explain to the layman that
textual criticism does not criticise the Bible but explains and analyses it
(70-98). It ought to be noted that most KJV-only advocates do not dispute
the need for constructive textual criticism that is founded on the
principles of faith and spiritual discernment. What we are against is
humanistic and modernistic textual criticism that seeks to take away
Gods words from us. Such destructive textual criticism is found in these
two infamous modernistsWestcott and Hortwho did not believe in
the plenary, verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Westcott and Hort
were translators of the Revised Version (RV). In their translation of 2 Tim
3:16, they questioned the doctrine of biblical inspiration by rendering the
verse this way, Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable. By
placing the copula is after inspired of God, the clause is made to
mean that not all parts of Scripture are inspired of God; only those
portions which are inspired are profitable. The KJV translators, on the
other hand, correctly placed the copula is right after All Scripture:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable. The
KJV leaves no ambiguity whatsoever that all of Scripture is divinely
418
inspired. Westcott and Horts alteration of the KJVs rendering of 2 Tim

3:16 in the RV evinces their limited inerrancy view of Scripture.
When the RV came out in 1881, Robert L Dabney, was furious over
its rendering of 2 Tim 3:16, and wrote a scathing attack against it in the
Southern Presbyterian Review (July 1881),
The poisonous suggestion intended is that, among the parts of the
scripture some are inspired and some are not. Our Bible contains fallible
parts! The very doctrine of the Socinian and Rationalist. This treacherous
version the revisers (viz, Westcott and Hort) have gratuitously sanctioned!
Indeed as modernists, Westcott and Hort were not fit to handle the
Scriptures. They cannot be trusted.
What is indeed strange is that Mark Minnick who quoted Dabney
(90-91) cannot see that Westcott and Hort are not friends but enemies of
the Bible. Their poisonous fruit reveals their reprobate root. In Matt 7:1518, Jesus had warned,
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheeps clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do
men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree
bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good
tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good
fruit.
We would think Minnicka BJU Bible Professorwould rise up in

defence of the faith. Sadly, the opposite is true. He praised Westcott and
Hort and called them careful textual critics (85). He adopts Westcott
and Horts destructive textual critical method.
Minnick believes in the Westcott and Hort lie that the difference
between their revised Greek text and the traditional Greek text is no more
than a thousandth part of the entire text, which he adds is no more than
one page of my entire Testament (86). Scriveners Greek Text
published in 1881, and reprinted by the Dean Burgon Society Press in
1999, compared the Textus Receptus with the Westcott and Hort Text.
Scriveners comparison reveals 5,604 places where the Westcott and Hort
Greek Text differed from the Textus Receptus. His footnotes show that
Westcott and Hort changed a total of 9,970 Greek words either by
addition or subtraction. That is almost 50 pages of my entire Testament.
Minnick went on to argue that fundamentalists should view the
Westcott and Hort text positively as did C H Spurgeon, G Campbell
419
Morgan, Alexander MacClaren, C I Scofield, H A Ironside and others

(87-8). As a fundamentalist, Minnick ought to know that our faith must
rest not on man (no matter how conservative they might be) but on the
Bible alone. Sola Scriptura! Minnicks mention of those great preachers
of the past only goes to prove that the leaven of Westcott and Horts
destructive textual criticism had also infected them. The leaven has
indeed spread far and wide. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump
(Gal 5:9).
The general pro-Westcott-Hort slant in Minnicks chapter is not only
seen by what he says, but also what he does not say. The great textual
scholarDean J W Burgonwho defended the KJV is often neglected
or ignored by supporters of the modern versions. Minnick is no
exception. Burgon is markedly absent in Minnicks discussion about the
text. Who is Dean Burgon? Why should he be taken seriously? I will
leave Hills to introduce him to you:
John William Burgon (1813-1888) became an outstanding English
scholar and textual critic. Burgon was born at Smyrna, the son of an English
merchant. He studied at London University (1829-1830) and then was
engaged for a time in his fathers business. In 1841 he returned to his
studies, entering Oxford University. He received his BA, MA, and BD
degrees from Oxford in the years 1845, 1848, and 1871, respectively. He
was elected fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, in 1848. He was appointed
Gresham professor of divinity at Oxford in 1867. He became vicar of St
Marys Church, Oxford, in 1863, and he was appointed Dean of Chichester
in 1876.
Burgon was no mean theologian, and his preaching was well attended.
He was the author of numerous publications, including sermons, tracts,
commentaries, and biographies. But as he pressed his studies of the New
Testament text, he became best known for his work in the sphere of NT
textual criticism.
Burgons lively literary style could possibly be traced to his early days in
Smyrna, Turkey; his mother being a native of that country, and his father an
English merchant there. At any rate he developed a warm and enthusiastic
nature, not typically English, together with a forthright and honest character
which would not allow him to accept pseudo-textual criticism.
Being driven by the desire to get to the bottom of the false statements
being made by the reigning Critics of his day, Burgon devoted the last 30
years of his life to disprove them. Believing firmly that God had
providentially preserved the true text of the New Testament, he set out to
420

discover how the depraved and corrupt readings developed. This required
him to travel widely. In 1860, for instance, he traveled to the Vatican
Library to personally examine Codex B. And in 1862 he traveled to Mt
Sinai to inspect the many manuscripts there. Later he made several tours of
European libraries, examining and actually collating NT manuscripts
wherever he went. At the same time he was compiling his massive Index of
the NT Quotations in the Church Fathers, which is deposited in the British
Museum, but never published.
Throughout his life Burgon remained unmarried, and no doubt this had
some bearing on the fact that he, as he put it, was willing to spend an entire
13-hour day to establish the authenticity of a single letter of the New
Testament Text. His masterly accumulation of evidence first became
apparent when he confronted the Critics with his 300-page bookThe Last
Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to Saint Markin 1871. His
evidence was so complete, and his arguments so unassailable that no one
tried to refute this bookeither point by point, or in total. When the
English Revised Version appeared in 1881, he was asked to review it for the
Quarterly Review. The result was the printing of his review articles in a
book which he entitled, The Revision Revised. During all of his active life
Burgon was accumulating notes and research data in order to establish what
he called The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels as the historically
authentic and proven Word of God. After his death in 1888, his long-time
friend and co-workerthe Rev Edward Millergathered together the
Deans notes and issued the two valuable books entitled, The Traditional
Text of the Holy Gospels; and The Causes of the Corruption of the
Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels (both 1896).
Through all these works runs Burgons fundamental thought, viz, that the
textual criticism of the Scriptures must be according to the analogy of faith,
and because of this it must be different from the textual criticism of any
other book. On this he wrote, That which distinguishes Sacred Science
from every other Science which can be named is that it is Divine, and has to
do with a Book which is inspired, and not to be regarded upon a level with
the Books of the East, which are held by their votaries to be sacred. ... Even
those principles of Textual Criticism which in the case of profane authors
are regarded as fundamental are often out of place here (Traditional Text,
9). In this Burgon was diametrically opposed to the other 19th century
critics, notably Westcott and Hort, who stated plainly that textual criticism
of the Bible should be handled in the same way as with any other book. But
Burgon, who never lost sight of the special providence of God which has
presided over the transmission of the New Testament down through the
ages, expressly set out to maintain against all opponents that the Church
was divinely guided to reject the false readings of the early centuries, and to
421

gradually accept the true text. He denied that he was claiming a perpetual
miracle that would keep manuscripts from being depraved at various times,
and in various places. But The Church, in her collective capacity, has
neverthelessas a matter of factbeen perpetually purging herself of those
shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded within her
pale (The Revision Revised, 334-5). He believed that just as God gradually
settled the Canon of the New Testament by weaning His churches from noncanonical books, so He did with the Text also.
Not being willing to dig to the depths that Burgon dug, and not being
able to disprove Burgons facts, his opponents (particularly Westcott and
Hort) refused to accept his challenges. They adopted a course of simply
portraying Burgon as some kind of Don Quixote who jousted at obstacles
too hard for him to understand. Or else they pictured him as too violent in
his statements, and thus as if he were a madman, they ignored him. In
textual criticism textbooks it has become a tradition to hold Burgon up to
ridicule, as if he were an obscurantist who foolishly challenged the assured
results of modern scholarship. This gross misrepresentation is gradually
being exposed by the simple expedient of reproducing Burgons books. The
scholarly, close-reasoned, fact-filled works of Burgon have persuaded many
a scholar in this last part of the 20th century that God indeed has not
abandoned His words from the day after they came abroad, but has instead
guided His children so as to preserve every jot and tittle of His Word. The
Traditional Text (or, Byzantine Text, as it is called today) being virtually the
same in the manuscripts from the 4th century onward, is proof enough of the
doctrine of Gods preservation of the Text, according to Burgons
reasoning, and his massive accumulation of evidence.
Dean Burgon had an extremely high view of Gods Word. He believed in

a 100% inerrant Bible. He said,
The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne.
Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every syllable of it,
but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless,
unerring, supreme.
At every annual convocation, the faculty of the Far Eastern Bible College
take an oath of allegiance to the Holy Scriptures based on Burgons
words. Whose side are you on? Burgon or Westcott and Hort? If you are
on the Lords side, you would support the former and not the latter.
Minnick lacked discernment and wisdom when he labeled KJV-only
advocates unscripturally divisive (98). He then reassured his readers
422
The History of the Textus Receptus by John E Ashbrook

Ashbrooks chapter employs a soothe then slap approach to
evaluating the Textus Receptus, and its first editorErasmus. Ashbrook
begins by praising Erasmus for his genius as a biblical and textual
scholar, and then castigates him as a modernist (102). It is very careless
of KJV critics to label Erasmus a modernist. Erasmus, like Luther, had
his doctrinal weaknesses, but he was hardly a modernist. Modernists like
Westcott and Hort have a very low view of Scripture. Erasmus on the
other hand had a high view of Scripture evinced by his painstakingly
edited Greek New Testament which in no small way aided the cause of
the Reformation. Like the Reformers, Erasmus desired the Scriptures to
be translated into all languages so that every one could read it and know
Christ for himself. Hear his testimony:
I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels and the Epistles of St.
Paul I would have those words translated into all languages, so that not
only Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long
for the plowboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, Other
studies we may regret having undertaken, but happy is the man upon whom
death comes when he is engaged in these. These sacred words give you the
very image of Christ speaking, healing, dying, rising again, and make Him
so present, that were He before your very eyes you would not more truly
see Him.
Ashbrook disparagingly says that Erasmus was a loyal son of the

Catholic Church (102). This is another misrepresentation. Erasmus
publicly exposed the heresies and superstitions of the Roman Catholic
Church. This angered the pope so much that he branded Erasmus an
impious heretic, and banned his books from being read by Catholics.
The pope evidently was able to see that Erasmus was a Reformer at heart.
However, as a Reformer, Erasmuss main fault was in his failure to
separate from the false Catholic Church (cf 2 Cor 6:14-7:1). Luther
succeeded in his reformation because he did it from without, but Erasmus
failed because he chose to do it from within. Nevertheless, as someone
had observed, it was Erasmus who laid the egg of the Reformation, and
Luther was left to hatch it.
Ashbrook is unhappy with people who scoff at Westcott and Hort
just because they were textual critics (104, 108). He contends that KJV
advocates who reject Westcott and Hort as textual critics, must likewise
reject Erasmus for he too was a textual critic. We do not dispute that
425
Erasmus did the work of textual criticism, but the question is not on
textual criticism per se, but the type of textual criticism employed.
Westcott and Hort invented a textual critical method which sought to take
Gods Word away from Gods people. The amount of verses Westcott and
Hort scissored out from our Bible is equivalent to that of First and
Second Peter. Erasmus, on the other hand, did not engage in this type of
deconstructive textual criticism. Erasmuss textual critical work was
guided by the common faith, ie, the belief that God had providentially
preserved the Scriptures down through the ages. Edward F Hills said,
In the days of Erasmus, it was commonly believed by well informed
Christians that the original New Testament text had been providentially
preserved in the current New Testament text, primarily in the current Greek
text and secondarily in the current Latin text. Erasmus was influenced by
this common faith and probably shared it, and God used it providentially to
guide Erasmus in his editorial labors on the Textus Receptus.
What sets Erasmus apart from Westcott and Hort was his belief that
God has kept His Word intact down through the centuries. This caused
him to edit the Greek New Testament with great reverence, taking care
not to snip away Gods Word. Westcott and Horts textual critical work
was quite different. Both denied the doctrines of inspiration and
preservation, and thus had no qualms whatsoever in spurning the majority
of New Testament Scripture that God had preserved for His people down
through the ages in favour of two extremely corrupted texts which the
Church had already seen fit to discard.
If Erasmus was such a faithful textual critic, then how would one
explain the charge that in his hurry to complete his Greek text, he
translated the last few verses of Revelation from Latin to Greek because
the last page of his manuscript on Revelation was missing? Hills gave
another side to this,
The last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev. 22:16-21) were lacking, According
to almost all scholars, Erasmus endeavoured to supply these deficiencies in
his manuscript by retranslating the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Hoskier,
however, was inclined to dispute this on the evidence of manuscript 141. In
his 4th edition of his Greek New Testament (1527) Erasmus corrected much
of this translation Greek (if it was indeed such) on the basis of a comparison
with the Complutensian Polyglot Bible
It is customary for naturalistic critics to make the most of human
imperfections in the Textus Receptus and to sneer at it as a mean and almost
sordid thing. But those who concentrate in this way on the human factors
426

involved in the production of the Textus Receptus are utterly unmindful of
the Providence of God. For in the very next year, in the plan of God, the
Reformation was to break out in Wittenberg, and it was important that the
Greek New Testament should be published first in one of the future
strongholds of Protestantism by a book seller who was eager to place it in
the hands of the people and not in Spain, the land of the Inquisition, by the
Roman Church, which was intent on keeping the Bible from the people.
Ashbrook is right to observe that the view of biblical preservation

must be accepted by faith, but wrong to say that this faith is based on
human assumption (106). This belief on biblical preservation is based
not on human assumption but divine revelation (Exod 32:15-19, 34:1-4,
Pss 12:6-7, 78:1-8, 105:8, 119:89,111,152,160, Prov 22:20-21, Eccl 3:14,
Jer 36-30-32, Matt 4:4, 5:17-18, 24:35, John 10:35, Col 1:17, 1 Pet 1:2325, Rev 22:18-19).
Printed Greek Texts by William H Smallman

Smallmans chapter presents a succinct update on the history of the
printed Greek texts. However, in his evaluation of the two distinct
families of printed Greek texts, viz, the Minority/Westcott-Hort/Critical
text, and the Majority/Textus Receptus/Traditional text, it is unfortunate
that he favours the so-called eclectic text or balanced approach
which is essentially pro-Westcott and Hort.
In his opening discussion, Smallman says that the first printed Greek
text (which became the Textus Receptus) by Erasmus was hastily
edited, and that he used only half dozen or so manuscripts (169-70).
This invariably gives the layman the impression that the Textus Receptus
was a result of sloppy work. Is this an accurate portrayal of Erasmus and
his work? Hills rose to Erasmuss defence,
By his travels [Erasmus] was brought into contact with all the intellectual
currents of his time and stimulated to almost superhuman efforts. He
became the most famous scholar and author of his day and one of the most
prolific writers of all time, his collected works filling ten large volumes .
As an editor also his productivity was tremendous. Ten columns of the
catalogue of the library in the British Museum are taken up with the bare
enumeration of the works translated, edited, or annotated by Erasmus, and
their subsequent reprints. Included are the greatest names of the classical
and patristic world, such as Ambrose, Aristotle, Augustine, Basil,
Chrysostom, Cicero, and Jerome. An almost unbelievable showing.
427

To conclude, there was no man in all Europe better prepared than Erasmus
for the work of editing the first printed Greek New Testament text, and this
is why, we may well believe, God chose him and directed him
providentially in the accomplishment of this task.
Did Erasmus employ other manuscripts besides those five he had

when preparing his Greek text? Hills answered,
The indications are that he did. It is well known also that Erasmus
looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed
them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was
based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also
included readings taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with
the common faith because it was founded on manuscripts which in the
providence of God were readily available.
To those who sought to demean Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Dean
Burgon had this to say, to describe the haste with which Erasmus
produced the first published edition of the NT, to make sport about the
copies which he employed, all this kind of thing is the preceding of one
who seeks to mislead his readers to throw dust in their eyes, to divert
their attention from the problems actually before them. I cannot agree
more.
When it came for Smallman to describe the Westcott and Hort text,
he called it an important development, and hailed the Codex Sinaiticus
as one of the finest quality manuscripts in existence (172). He said that
the Westcott and Hort text produced a revolution, which led to a new
quest to define the original text, to be based on new witnesses and
on new approaches to interpreting the variants. He also noted that the
Westcott and Hort text and its offshoots contain significant differences
from the Textus Receptus (171). Were those differences for the better or
for the worse? Are the verses removed from the Textus Receptus by
Westcott and Hort authentic or spurious? Smallman in his attempt to
maintain his balancing act refused to say or commit himself. He wrote
evasively, It is not the purpose of this essay to debate the fundamentals
of Wescott [sic] and Horts principles and canons (173).
Smallman considers the modern, critical Greek texts of Nestle and
Aland (NA), and the United Bible Societies (UBS) to be the Standard
Greek Testament. He said, The establishment of the United Bible
Societies/Nestle-Aland Text as standard is accepted by many virtually
without argument (179). He also says that this Standard Greek Text
428
has been achieved by the majority of textual scholars who prefer the
minority of manuscripts (179). Despite the fact that this so-called
Standard Greek Text is based only on a minority of the manuscripts
(ie, the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts), Smallman has interestingly
nothing negative to say about it. Like the modernists and neoevangelicals, he takes the eclectic view that the critical UBS and NA
Greek texts are truly scholarly and balanced vis-a-vis the Textus
Receptus.
Is the UBS and NA Greek texts truly eclectic (ie, a mixture of all
available texts), or is it really the Westcott and Hort text disguised; a wolf
in sheeps clothing? According to Radmacher and Hodges, the new
Textus Receptus of the UBS and NA do not differ a whole lot from the
text produced by Westcott-Hort in 1881. Gordon Fee, who is no
fundamentalist, also acknowledged, [In] Modern textual criticism, the
eclecticism of the UBS, RSV, NIV, NASB etc., recognizes that
Westcott-Horts view of things was essentially correct. Thus the term
eclectic is but a smokescreen.
The UBS Greek Text itself when it first came out acknowledged that
its work was carried out on the basis of Westcott and Horts edition of
the Greek New Testament. It is thus no surprise that the first two
editions of the UBS text relegated the pericope de adultera (John 7:538:11) from its original and traditional place to the end of the Gospel; this
to show that the passage is considered non-authentic. This clearly reveals
a Westcott and Hort attitude. Like Westcott and Hort, the UBS editors
accepted without question the omission of those verses in the corrupt
Alexandrian manuscripts over against the Traditional and Majority Text.
It is interesting to note that the third edition transposed John 7:53-8:11
back to its original location. Are the editors now admitting their error in
rejecting the pericope? Although the pericope is now returned to its
rightful place, the passage is enclosed by double brackets. What do these
double brackets mean? The UBS editors say, Double brackets in the text
indicate that the enclosed passages which are usually rather extensive are
known not to be a part of the original text. Not only this precious
passage, but also Marks last 12 verses are also assigned double brackets.
The UBS editors would like us to know that both passages are not
inspired Scripture. Do you not see the forked tongue of the snake here?
Why are fundamentalists hissing to the same tune? Are the last 12 verses
of Mark, the pericope de adultera (John 7:53-8:11), the Johannine
429
Comma (1 John 5:7-8), and a host of other verses Westcott and Hort
removed from the Textus Receptus, divinely inspired? If you are looking
to Smallman for answers, look no more! He is so balanced, he leaves
you clueless.
Smallman would neither debate nor examine Westcott and Hort, but
would spend three full pages (172-5) explaining their textual critical
method which he deemed profitable (173), as compared to only half a
page for the Textus Receptus (180). Do you not see the bias? Dean
Burgon was only given cursory mention. Smallman did not consider
Burgons books in defence of the Textus Receptus and KJV to be worth
his time. Yet, Smallman was quick to use Burgon when it came time to
undermine the laymans confidence on the KJV. He quoted Burgon as
saying,
Once for all, we request it may be clearly understood that we do not, by any
means, claim perfection for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant
notions on this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out
that the Textus Receptus needs correction (182).
But Smallman should not have stopped there, giving a skewed picture.
Burgon went on to express how deeply he appreciated the Textus
Receptus,
We do but insist, (1) That it is an incomparably better text than that which
either Lachmann, Tischendorf, or Tregelles has produced: infinitely
preferable to the New Greek Text of the Revisionists (viz, Westcott and
Hort). And, (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus will have to be
revised on entirely different principles from those which are just now in
fashion. Men must begin by unlearning the German (ie, liberal) prejudices
and address themselves, instead to the stern logic of facts.
In his conclusion, Smallman reveals his confusion. He wrote quite

rightly that
The divine preservation of the Scriptures is a fact that gives great assurance
to those who read the Bible today. It is the Word of God, and every jot and
tittle of it is kept intact for the readers of successive generations (182).
But in the next sentence he turns agnostic: Still, our certainty of the
preservation of the text does not identify which text family is the object
of that providential oversight. To him, the text is preserved in all the
texts whether corrupt or not. Such a position is clearly illogical, and
contradictory. I would urge readers to listen to Hills instead of Smallman,
Let me repeat Hillss most pertinent warning here,
430

ancient books. For the logic of this unbelieving attitude is likely to lay hold
upon us and cast us down into a bottomless pit of uncertainty. ...
them want to do this in a rationalistic, naturalistic way. Instead of beginning
with God, they wish to begin with facts viewed apart from God, with details
concerning the New Testament manuscripts which must be regarded as true
(so they think) no matter whether God exists or not. ...
the King James Version, in other words, to the common faith.
431
Can we be certain of Gods Word? God in Prov 22:20-21 says,

Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou
mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? Be sure
of this: God wants us to have certainty concerning His Words.
The Making of the King James Version by John C Mincy

Despite its helpful historical data, this chapter misrepresents the
KJV translators in a most misleading way. In support of modern and
corrupt versions, Mincy argued that the KJV translators themselves
viewed even the worst English versions as the Word of God (141). He
quoted them as saying, Now to answer our enemies; we do not deny,
rather we affirm and insist that the very worst translation of the Bible in
English issued by Protestants contains the word of God, or rather, is the
word of God. This statement is most illogical and totally unbiblical!
Were the KJV translators capable of those words; the ones who
extolled truth and condemned error? Consider what they wrote in their
prefaceThe Translators to the Readers,
But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without
the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the
Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search (John 5.39; Isaiah
8.20). They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe
them (Matthew 22.29; Luke 24.25). They can make us wise unto salvation
(2 Timothy 3.15). If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way,
they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness,
comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us. Tolle, lege, Tolle, lege,
Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures The Scriptures then
being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how can we excuse
ourselves of negligence, if we do not study them? It is not only an armor,
but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby
we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a
tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every
month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is
not a pot of Manna, or a cruse of oil, which were for memory only, or for a
meals meat or two; but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for
a whole host, be it never so great, and as it were a whole cellar full of oil
vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts
discharged. In a word, it is a panary of wholesome food, against fenowed
traditions; a physicians shop of preservatives against poisoned heresies;
a pandect of profitable laws against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most
432

costly jewels against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure
water springing up unto everlasting life. Happy is the man that delighteth
in the Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night.
Could the men who penned the above words have sanctioned a corrupted
translation of the Scriptures? Would they have cried, Tolle, lege, Tolle,
lege, if John 1:29 had read thus, Behold the Pig of God, which taketh
away the sin of the world? If the fountain of most pure water had been
polluted by enemies of the Word in such a way, I am quite certain that the
KJV translators would have cursed that version for blasphemy, and cast it
into the fire. It is truly absurd for Mincy to think that the KJV translators
humoured wicked versions. Indeed the Puritans among the KJV
translators appealed to the king for a new English Bible because the Bible
as found in the Communion book was according to them, a most
corrupted translation. Evidently, corrupt translations did not sit well
with them at all.
The question remains: Did the KJV translators really say that the
worst versions are acceptable? They certainly did not. Mincys
quotation of the KJV translators is taken from Rhodes and Lupass
paraphrase (published by the American Bible Society in 1997) of their
original statement. It is obvious that Rhodes and Lupas felt quite free to
change the original intent of those words, taking them out of context.
How did the original version read especially in context?
Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow,
that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of
our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)
containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the Kings speech
which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian,
and Latin, is still the Kings speech, though it be not interpreted by every
translator with the like grace,
It is clear that by the word meanest they did not mean worst (ie, evil
in the highest degree). Who would dare mistranslate the kings speech?
Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By meanest they
meant poor in literary grace. When beginning Greek students translate
their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and wooden; but if literal
and precise, it is the Word of God.
433
The Changing King James Version, by Mark R Simmons

In this chapter, Simmons ridicules KJV-only advocates by setting up
a straw man. He calls KJV-only advocates overly simplistic for believing
that the actual 1611 KJV is the preserved Word of God (161). Of
course, no right thinking KJV defender would say that. First, KJV-only
advocates believe that the preserved text is the Hebrew and Greek text
that underlies the KJV. The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament (Ben
Chayyim edition, 1524-5), and the Greek Textus Receptus (Bezas 5th
edition, 1598) on which the KJV is based are the preserved Old
Testament, and New Testament text respectively. Second, when KJV
defenders say they uphold the KJV of 1611, they do not mean the exact
1611 edition. KJV defenders like their detractors know that the KJV
currently in print is the 1769 edition. The KJV was originally published
in the year 1611. To identify certain things by their year of origination is
common practice. For example, Biblical Theological Seminary was
founded in the year 1971. It was not known as Biblical Theological
Seminary at that time but Biblical School of Theology. When there
was a name change in 1978, did the school also change its year of
establishment? Of course not! It remained 1971. Likewise, to refer to the
present edition of the KJV as the KJV of 1611 is neither unusual, nor
deceptive; it simply reflects history.
Simmons exaggerates when he says that the KJV is extremely
difficult to understand because over four thousand words in the King
James Bible are not found in even the best of our one volume English
dictionaries today (153). There are just about 200 archaic words in the
KJV, and most of these words can be found in our Websters, Oxford, and
Chambers dictionaries. The recently published Defined King James
Bible, edited by Dr D A Waite and his son, has footnoted the modern
meaning of all archaic words in the KJV. There is really no excuse now
not to use the KJV just because some of its words are archaic.
Anti-KJVists often ridicule the use of the thees and thous in the
KJV, simply because these archaic pronouns are no longer common
today. But is this a good reason to abandon the KJV? In an article
entitled, Is a Pronominal Revision of the Authorised Version
Desirable?, Dr Oswald T Allis wrote,
It is a well-known fact that in contemporary English the forms thou, thy,
thine have almost disappeared from secular use. They are largely restricted
434

to the language of religious devotion, in which they are constantly
employed, and which is largely formed by, and owes its peculiarities to, the
Authorised Version. Consequently, it is often asserted or assumed that the
usage of the AV represents the speech of 300 years ago, and that now, three
centuries later, it should be changed to accord with contemporary usage.
But this is not at all a correct statement of the problem. The important fact
is this. The usage of the AV is not the ordinary usage of the early
seventeenth century: it is the Biblical usage based on the style of the
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The second part of this statement needs no
proof and will be challenged by no one. It is undeniable that where the
Hebrew and Greek use the singular of the pronoun the AV regularly uses the
singular, and where they use the plural it uses the plural. Even in
Deuteronomy where in his addresses, and apparently for rhetorical and
pedagogical effect, Moses often changes suddenly, and seemingly
arbitrarily, from singular to plural or from plural to singular, the AV
reproduces the style of the text with fidelity. That is to say, the usage of the
AV is strictly Biblical.
If the fundamentalists who wrote From the Mind of God to the Mind of
Man believe in verbal inspiration, they should be quick to defend the use
of the archaic pronouns of the KJV which accurately render in English
the singular and plural pronouns of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. It
would indeed be a contradiction in faith and practice for them to consider
the thees and the thous to be unimportant and insignificant.
Simmons also makes a big deal out of the many revisions of the
KJV (156-165). The KJV of 1611 went through a number of revisions
soon after publication but all of which were completed in 1629. The
revisions that occurred between 1611 and 1629 were due to printing
errors. These errors were corrected by the KJV translators themselves,
namely Samuel Ward and John Bois. In the course of typesetting, the
printers had inadvertently left out words or phrases; all such
typographical errors were corrected. Another revision of the KJV was
done between 1762 and 1769. This revision had to do with spelling. For
example, old forms which had an e after verbs, and u instead of v,
and f for s were all standardised to conform to modern spelling. For
example, feare is fear, mooued is moved, and euill is evil,
and alfo, is also. All these Gothic and German spelling peculiarities
have been Romanised by 1769. It is important to note that the 1769
edition is essentially the same as the 1611.
435
English Versions Since 1880, by J Drew Conley

Conley in his article cast KJV-only advocates in a bad light. Quoting
the KJV translators who said that the Bible should be translated into the
language of the common man, he obliquely accused those who insist that
the archaic KJV alone is the acceptable English Bible for hiding Gods
Word from people just like the Romanists in days gone by (187-9).
Conley argues that the profound changes in English since the 1600s has
caused many words in the KJV to
come up blank in the readers thinkingor worse, misunderstood And
when the text is the Bible, lack of understanding does spiritual harm. For
me to expect members of the congregationespecially new convertsto
devote themselves to profitable study of a Bible in an unfamiliar language
is certainly wishful thinking at best (183).
Conleys concern over the understandability of the KJV is well taken,

but his solution to the difficulty is a step backwards, not forwards. For
young believers, it is not just the archaisms in the Bible that may pose
some difficulty, but also the many hard theological terms. How should the
pastor advise the young believer? Use the NIV, or TEV, or CEV, or RSV,
or NASB, or the Living Bible? This would be like giving a baby milk
laced with cyanide! Conley rightly says that the pastor has a duty to
communicate Gods truth so others understand (192). He continues,
There are words of such great theological significance that they should
never be replaced. A preacher should define them, explain them, and
illustrate them so that others can make them their own. Justification,
sanctification, glorification, propitiation, atonement, reconciliation,
understood by few except those who have been taught the gospel, have been
too precisely defined over the years to abandon them without grave
consequences (192).
If pastors have a duty to explain all those important theological terms to

their congregation so that they might understand, why cannot they do the
same for the archaic words in the KJV? Furthermore, why cannot the
young believer be taught to use the dictionary to locate the meaning of
those words, or better still, why cannot the pastor present to him a copy
of The Defined King James Bible? Why should the young Christian be
told to throw out his KJV and get an NIV or some other perversion of the
Bible just because of some old words?
The excuse not to use the KJV because it contains archaic words is
really quite flimsy. When we read a modern book, do we not find words
436
Conley not defend the orthodox translation of Isa 7:14 as found in the
KJV over against the RSV? Perhaps Conley holds to the neo-evangelical
view that Isa 7:14 has two fulfilments: one in the time of Isaiah, and the
other in the time of Christ. If Conley does allow for such a translation and
interpretation of Isa 7:14, he is no fundamentalist. It is well known that in
1952, when the RSV was released, fundamentalist scholars took the RSV
to task for its heretical treatment of Isa 7:14. Conley must surely know
this, yet he does not seem to care.
If Conley is sympathetic to the RSV, he is enthusiastic about the
NASB. He says the NASB
incorporates the gains made by the discoveries of additional manuscripts
(ie, Alexandrian manuscripts) and has thus proven of great value in
discerning the underlying text. To some its strength carries with it a
weaknessthat of falling short of a smooth English style. Others fault it,
along with almost all the modern versions for the Greek textual family it
uses. Neither charge is totally fair to this excellent tool for Bible study
(201).
Conley tells his readers that he will neither recommend nor critique, but
does not his remarks about the NASB sound like a recommendation? The
layman would do well to note that the NASB, though rather literal, is
unreliable because it is based on the corrupt Westcott and Hort text.
If the layman wants to find guidance on which English versions are
reliable and which are not, he would do well to skip Conley, and find it
somewhere else. One good source is A Brief History of English Bible
Translations by Laurence M Vance.
Conclusion: The Response to These Facts, by

Keith E Gephart
Gephart reiterates the aim of the book which is to fault certain
fundamentalists for taking a pro-KJV or KJV-only position. He says, As
always, Fundamentalisms greatest difficulties are caused by those within
its own ranks who by some actions, statements, or doctrinal positions
bring embarassment and unnecessary discord (211). Such rhetoric is no
different from that of Ahab to Elijah, Art thou he that troubleth Israel?
(1 Kgs 18:17). Like Elijah we reply, I have not troubled Israel; but
thou, and thy fathers house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments
of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim (1 Kgs 18:18). KJV-only
advocates have been faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts God has
438
inspired and preserved down through the ages. Pan-Versionists like

Gephart have shunted from the traditional and preserved text to embrace
the modernist and critical text of Westcott and Hort, the UBS, and NA.
The old, conservative textual line began in the time of the Apostles, and
preserved all through the centuries by God, culminating in the Textus
Receptus of the 16th century Reformation. This line continued until Satan
introduced a new, modernistic line in the Westcott and Hort text of 19th
century liberalism. Know that the 19 th century was a time of great
unbelief when new-fangled isms like Evolutionism, Liberalism,
Freudianism, Marxism, and Ecumenism came into being. It looks like
modern fundamentalists instead of traveling on the good old gospel
train, have hopped onto the new and seductive Westcott-Hort train
which will only lead to unbelief and apostasy. Hills has rightly warned
that those who take an eclectic view of providential preservation of
Scriptures (ie, the Textus Receptus is good, but so is Westcott and Hort;
the KJV is good, but so are all the modern versions) are logically on
[their] way toward the denial of the infallible inspiration of the
Scriptures. Let me also repeat the good advice of Martin:
The only road to progress in New Testament textual criticism is repudiation
of their (ie, Westcott and Hort) theory and all its fruits. Most contemporary
criticism is bankrupt and confused, the result of its liaison with liberal
theology. A Bible-believing Christian can never be content to follow the
leadership of those who do not recognize the Bible as the verbally inspired
Word of God. The Textus Receptus is the starting-point for future research,
because it embodies substantially and in a convenient form the traditional
text.
Gephart enjoins all his readers to be like the noble Bereans who
searched the Scriptures (214). Yes, it is vitally important for all true
theologues to search the Scriptures. However, it is equally important also
for them to ensure that the Scriptures they search from is truly the Word
of God, accurately and faithfully translated from the original. The reason
is plain and simple: If you are not reading from a pure and unadulterated
Word, you will not find the truth for which you seek.
Let me give an example. In the KJV, Ps 12:6-7 reads, The words of
the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified
seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt perserve them
from this generation for ever. It is very clear from this text that God has
promised to preserve His Word: He will keep and preserve them, ie, His
439

I believe this English Authorized Version is unsurpassably pre-eminent
over and above all other English translations, because like the blessed
Joseph there rests upon it the blessing of the heavens above and of the deep
that lieth under (Genesis 49:25).
I cry out There is none like that, give it me, and in so doing I nail the
Satanic lie that the Authorized Version is outdated, outmoded,
mistranslated, a relic of the past and only defended by stupid, unlearned,
untaught obscurantists.
As its deriders and revilers pass on to the judgment of the thrice holy
God whose revelation they despise, the Old Book,
Incomparable in its faithfulness, majestic in its language, and
inexhaustible in its spiritual fruitfulness, continues to reveal to millions the
matchless grace of Him whose name is THE WORD OF GOD, and who is
crowned with glory and honour.
I believe this Book will always be the unsurpassable pre-eminent English
version of the Holy Bible and no other can ever take its place.
To seek to dislodge this Book from its rightful pre-eminent place is the
act of the enemy, and what is attempted to put in its place is an intruder - an
imposter - a pretender - a usurper.
We plead with BJU and fellow fundamentalists who love God and
His Word to defend the KJV, and defend it only. Shouldest thou help the
ungodly, and love them that hate the Lord? (2 Chr 19:1-2). Be like
David who had the mind of God to fight Goliath. If we have the mind of
God, we must also have the heart of God: Do not I hate them, O LORD,
that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies (Ps 139:2122).
441
47
THE EMERGENCE OF NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM
One Bible Only? or Yea Hath God Said?
Jeffrey Khoo
False doctrine does not meet men face to face, and proclaim that it is false.
It does not blow a trumpet before it, and endeavour openly to turn us away
from the truth as it is in Jesus. It does not come before men in broad
daylight and summon them to surrender. It approaches us secretly, quietly,
insidiously, plausibly, and in such a way as to disarm mans suspicion, and
throw him off his guard. It is the wolf in sheeps clothing, and Satan in the
garb of an angel of light, who have always proved the most dangerous foes
of the Church (J C Ryle, Warnings to the Churches, 56).
The Differences Between Historic Fundamentalism and Neo-Fundamentalism in
Their Respective Views on Biblical Inspiration and Preservation
Historic Fundamentalism
Neo-Fundamentalism
The perfect, infallible and inerrant Bible

is not only in the Autographs but also in
the existing and tangible Apographs (the
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek Scriptures on
which the KJV is based).
The perfect, infallible and inerrant Bible

is only in the non-existent and intangible
Autographs (the actual Hebrew, Aramaic,
Greek Scriptures penned by the
Prophets and Apostles.
The Autographs are entirely preserved.

We have all of God's Word today
(100%). Every word and every doctrine
preserved (i.e. verbal preservation).
The Autographs are essentially

preserved. We have most of God's
Word today (99%). Every doctrine
preserved, but not every word (i.e.
conceptual preservation).
The biblical basis for the doctrine of

100% preservation of the Scriptures is
found in Matt 5:18 as stated in the
Westminster Confession. Other verses
are Ps 12:6-7, Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31,
Luke 21:33.
There is no biblical basis for the

doctrine of 100% preservation of the
Scriptures. All Scripture verses
supporting preservation like Matt 5:18
are explained away.
There are no mistakes whatsoever in the

Bible. Discrepancies like the one found
in 2 Kgs 8:26/2 Chron 22:2 are only
apparent and not actual errors.
There are no mistakes in the Bible that

should cause any worry. Allows for
insignificant mistakes or minor errors
(e.g. 2 Kgs 8:26/2 Chron 22:2).
442
The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism
One Bible Only? (238 pages, edited by Roy E Beacham and Kevin T
Bauder, and published by Kregel in 2001) should be retitled, Yea, Hath
God Said? (Gen 3:1). In this book, one hears again the seductive
scholarly hissing of the snake that seeks to cast a doubt in the hearts
and minds of Gods people concerning what God says of His perfectly
inspired and absolutely preserved Scriptures. On page 22, they pose the
question: Does the Bible promise that all of Gods words will be
preserved? KJV/TR-Only advocates affirm the twin doctrines of the
verbal and plenary inspiration and preservation of Gods words, yea even
to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18), but these so-called Baptist
fundamentalists, who teach at Central Baptist Theological Seminary of
Plymouth, Minnesota, answer with a rhetorical Did God say it? Yea,
hath God said?
Having questioned the Word of God, they had the cheek to describe
themselves as belonging to the conservative wing of fundamentalism.
What a betrayal! Had they not identified themselves, I would have
thought they were modernists or at least neo-evangelicals. But they say
they are fundamentalists! They are no fundamentalists if they question
God and His Word like this. If they are truly fundamentalists, they ought
to be ashamed of themselves. Dr Carl McIntire has rightly said, The
worst sin today is to say that you agree with the Christian faith and
believe in the Bible, but then make common cause with those who deny
the basic facts of Christianity. Never was it more obviously true that he
that is not with Christ is against Him. They undermine Gods Word and
the faith of Gods Church by denying that Gods people have Gods
infallible and inerrant Word today. Are we seeing the emergence of a new
breed of left-wing fundamentalismthe rise of a Neo-fundamentalism?
Now, let us examine the book chapter by chapter.
The Richness of Scripture by Douglas R McLachlan

In his preface, McLachlan, the president of Central Seminary,
affirms the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, but only in the
autographs (10). McLachlan explains that the autographs or original
manuscripts of Scripture are no longer in existence. What the Church has
today are the manuscript copies which reflect about 2000 variant
readings, none of which, assures McLachlan, affects the overall
theology of Bible-believing Christians (10).
443
There is no denial that there are variant readings in the over 5000
New Testament manuscripts we have today, but McLachlan is truly nave
to think that no fundamental doctrines are affected by any of these
variants. It is clearly evident that certain manuscripts have been
purposely doctored to undermine the fundamental doctrines of the
Christian Faith. These corrupt manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian
text-type which liberal scholars parroting Westcott and Hort claim to be
the best and most reliable. But the oft-neglected Dean J W Burgon has
proven beyond doubt that the Alexandrian codices of Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus hailed by Westcott and Hort to be as good as the autographs are
among the most scandalously corrupt copies extant:exhibit the most
shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with:have
become the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings,
ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth,which are
discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God (Revision
Revised, 16). One well-known example of corruption which affects
doctrine is found in 1 Tim 3:16. The inspired text reads Theos
ephanerothe en sarki, God was manifest in the flesh (KJV), but the
Alexandrian text altered the inspired text to read, Hos ephanerothe en
sarki, He appeared in a body (NIV). By changing God to simply
He the Alexandrian scribes have effectively cancelled the Godhood of
our Lord in the original inspired Scripture, and by so doing robbed the
Church of a most precious and wonderful proof for the deity of Christ.
Some may take this lightly, Why are you so hard on Westcott and
Hort and the Alexandrian text? It is just one word or one verse in the
Bible. It is not that bad! Whether this is excusable or not, let the Apostle
James be the judge, For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all (Jas 2:10). The same applies to
those who attempt to corrupt the Bible: Whoever corrupts one word or
one verse in the Bible is guilty of corrupting all of the Bible.
The question remains: Is corruption in the Alexandrian text found
only in this single place? Most definitely not! Dean Burgon in examining
the two highly prized codices of Westcott and Hort, viz., the Sinaiticus
and Vaticanus found many omissions, additions, substitutions,
transpositions and modifications in them, and these alterations are by no
means the same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses
in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two
consecutive verses in which they entirely agree (Revision Revised, 12).
444
Yet these most untrustworthy and grossly mutilated manuscripts are what
the modern Bible translators rely on to translate their modern versions.
Now McLachlan refuses to take a stand against the corrupt Westcott
and Hort text. He is against becoming frozen in time by anchoring to
and absolutizing only one English translation or one narrow family of
Greek manuscripts (12). He wants to be very balanced to accept the
whole kettle of textual soup. He recommends the textual-critical recipe
of neo-evangelical charismaticGordon Feeto make this large kettle
of textual soup edible (11). Hence the book titleOne Bible Only?.
McLachlan and his faculty want to be very broad to embrace all kinds of
manuscripts and versions whether corrupt or not. They despise the
narrow way of just one Bible and one Preserved Text. To them, it is
simply foolish to adopt the narrow way. But what did Jesus say? Enter
ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because
strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few
there be that find it (Matt 7:13-14). It would be wise to follow Jesus, not
McLachlan.
The bottom line is this: Not all the Bibles are the same. That is a
fact! The Alexandrian manuscripts that underlie the modern translations
are plagued throughout with all kinds of fabricated readings that are out
of harmony with the majority of extant and faithfully transmitted
manuscripts. Most of the Bible versions today are based on corrupt
manuscripts as compared to the KJV which is based on the providentially
preserved text that has been kept pure in all ages (Westminster
Confession of Faith, 1.8). As such, it is not a both-and but an either-or
commitment. It is either the Christ-exalting and faith-producing KJV or
the modern Christ-denying and money-making perversions. As Jesus has
said, No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and
love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye
cannot serve God and mammon (Matt 6:24). Similarly, no one can serve
two Bibles! We have Only One God and He has given us Only One Bible!
Over against the denials and doubts cast by One Bible Only?,
Statement #11 of the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC)
16 th World Congress, Jerusalem 2000, affirms this: Believing God
safeguarded the Bible in times past and will continue to do so in the
future and all eternity. He preserved ONE Holy Scripture, the Bible.
Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away;
445
Matthew 24:35. Believing the O.T. has been preserved in the Masoretic
text and the N.T. in the Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the
complete Word of God.
The Issues at Hand by Kevin T Bauder

Bauder strongly objects to the fundamentalist movement that
recommends the King James Version as the only acceptable English Bible
for the Church. Bauder is troubled by the rise of the King James-Only
movement and disturbed that Churches and fellowships began to
pressure their preachers to use only the King James for public reading
and teaching. Resolutions were passed honoring the King James Version
and recommending its exclusive use (15). Why should he be so troubled
by this? Did he not entertain the possibility that the KJV could be a
superior version in terms of its text and translation (18)? What is wrong if
conservative Christians feel that it is the only Bible they should use?
Bauder claims that historic fundamentalists were not King James
Only. This is however not the observation of James Barr who wrote,
For fundamentalist society as a whole the Authorized Version functioned
as the direct and immediate expression or transcript of divine revelation
... The virtual use of only one English version, and it is one originating
within very traditional early seventeenth-century Christianity, thus
indirectly but very powerfully supported the alienation of the
fundamentalist public from, and its opposition to, the positions, interests
and methods from which all biblical criticism grew and on which it
depended (Fundamentalism, 210-211). Barr, who is no friend of
fundamentalism, appears more honest with the facts than the
fundamentalists of Central Seminary. Dr Robert Gromacki of Cedarville
College, in his New Testament Survey textbook, affirms the KJV as the
text of fundamentalism (New Testament Survey, xii). Dr Ian Paisley, a
prominent leader of the World Congress of Fundamentalism, upholds the
KJV as the only Bible fundamentalists should use. Without mincing his
words he wrote, I believe this Authorised Version is unsurpassably preeminent over and above all other English translations, I cry out There
is none like that, give it me, and in so doing I nail the Satanic lie that the
Authorised Version is outdated, outmoded, mistranslated, a relic of the
past and only defended by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists. I
believe this Book will always be the unsurpassable pre-eminent English
version of the Holy Bible and no other can ever take its place. To seek to
446
imposter - a pretender - a usurper (My Plea for the Old Sword, 10-11). In
similar fashion, Dr Carl McIntire and the International Council of
Christian Churches (ICCC) in two recent World Congresses, in
Amsterdam 1998 and in Jerusalem 2000, affirmed the exclusive KJV
stance of historic fundamentalism.
Indeed, there is today a God-driven movement at the grassroots level
towards the KJV and the Textus Receptus. But the scholars today are
trying their level best to stop it. This is hardly strange since it is usually
the saints and not the scholars that are sensitive to the Truth. History has
shown that the seminaries are the ones that go apostate first. But the Lord
will always preserve His Church from being totally devastated by heresy.
Has He not promised, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt 16:18)? There will always
be a faithful remnant. What Bauder has observed is the work of the
common faith of the faithful Church to insist on the use of the best
English version of the Bible today which is the KJV. But now you have
so-called scholars from the seminaries who seek to undermine the
Ecclesial Faith in its movement towards one Bible only! Dr Paisleys
warning is timely, No Bible believer should be deceived by the parading
of great names in the field of Biblical scholarship, when these very men
are but the parrots of the rationalists of another century. The case they
present is not their own but a modern presentation of an ancient heresy
(My Plea for the Old Sword, 13). This surely applies to One Bible Only?
and its authors.
I am thankful for Bauders concession that it is not irresponsible of
certain Pro-KJV advocates to assert the superiority of the KJV among
English Bible versions, and its underlying Hebrew and Greek Text (18).
He acknowledges that there are moderate Pro-KJV advocates who are
vehemently opposed to the heretical views of Ruckman (19). Such a
position is clearly articulated by Dr D A Waite in his bookDefending
the King James Bible: A Four-fold Superiority. The KJV ought to be the
only Bible the English Church should use because it is superior in terms
of its (1) Text (Traditional and Preserved Hebrew Masoretic and Greek
Received Text), (2) Translation technique (verbal or formal rather than
dynamic equivalence), (3) Translators (Bible-believing and Bibledefending scholars who had a thorough mastery of the biblical languages
447
and an impeccable command of the English language), and (4) Theology

(upholding every fundamental doctrine of the Historic Christian Faith).
Bauder cannot but admit that the KJV is the only translation that meets
all four criteria (19).
What then is the problem? It is this: One Bible Only? argues that
the King James is not the only true Bible in the English language (19).
Its authors insists that modern Bible perversions that are based on the
corrupt Westcott and Hort text must be allowed in the churches and be
regarded as the Word of God. They are in effect saying, The NIV,
NASB, RSV, TEV, CEV, ESV, NLT etc., though based on the highly
corrupt Westcott and Hort Text are not dangerous to use. Does this
make sense to you, my dear reader? If I were to tell you, This glass of
milk though laced with arsenic is not dangerous to drink, what would
you think of me? I do not have to tell you this, but Bauder is dispensing
dangerous counsel most unbecoming of a fundamentalist! The authors of
One Bible Only? are advocating a sort of pluralism. With regard to Bible
versions, they want to go ecumenical! Can Truth and Error be mixed?
How quickly they have forgotten 2 Cor 6:14! If they persist in this error,
Central Seminary will soon become Central Cemetery! God forbid that
this should happen, but history does often repeat itself!
What is the real danger of One Bible Only? It is this: the false
teaching that the Church today is bereft of an absolutely infallible and
inerrant Bible. Bauder does not believe that the God who perfectly
inspired His Word has also perfectly preserved His Word. He affirms
Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) but denies Verbal Plenary Preservation
(VPP). He spent seven whole pages (20-26) arguing that we do not have
an infallible and inerrant Bible today by denying the doctrine of VPP. By
denying VPP, Bauder might as well deny VPI for what is the use of an
infallible and inerrant Bible yesterday but not today? Dr Paisley was
absolutely correct to say, The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures
demands the verbal Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would
deny the need for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as committed to
verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God today then the
work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished (My Plea
for the Old Sword, 103). Dr Timothy Tow, founding pastor of the BiblePresbyterian Church in Singapore and principal of the Far Eastern Bible
College, likewise wrote, We believe the preservation of Holy Scripture
and its Divine inspiration stand in the same position as providence and
448
creation. If Deism teaches a Creator who goes to sleep after creating the
world is absurd, to hold to the doctrine of inspiration without
preservation is equally illogical. Without preservation, all the
inspiration, God-breathing into the Scriptures, would be lost. But we have
a Bible so pure and powerful in every word and it is so because God has
preserved it down through the ages (A Theology for Every Christian:
Knowing God and His Word, 47).
Bauder in denying VPP not only goes against a long string of
biblical texts that teach the twin doctrines of VPI and VPP (Exod 32:1519, 34:1-4; Deut 4:2; Ps 12:6-7, 78:1-8, 105:8, 119:89-90,140,151-152,
160; Prov 22:20-21, 30:6; Eccl 3:14; Jer 36:27-32; Matt 4:4, 5:18, 24:35,
Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 10:35; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 1 Pet 1:23-25; 2 Pet
1:19-21; Rev 22:18-19), he is also against the great Confessions of Faith
that affirm the same. The Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith
(1643-48) states, The Old Testament in Hebrew ... and the New
Testament in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God, and, by His
singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to
appeal unto them. The Baptist New Hampshire Confession (1833)
similarly states, We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men
divinely inspired, and is an infallible and inerrant treasure of heavenly
instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth,
without any mixture of error, for its matter ... and therefore is, and shall
remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the
supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions
should be tried. The Helvetic Consensus Formula is even stronger than
the Westminster Confession and the New Hampshire Confession in its
affirmation of providential preservation: God, the supreme Judge, not
only took care to have His Word, which is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth (Rom 1:16), committed to writing
by Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, but has also watched and
cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the present
time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man.
Therefore the church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and goodness
that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a sure word of
prophecy (2 Pet 1:19) and holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:15), from which,
though heaven and earth perish, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass (Matt 5:18). There is no denying that the doctrine of VPI and VPP
449
are historically fundamental doctrines affirmed by both Presbyterian as

well as Baptist Protestant churches since the 16th century Reformation.
The Background and Origin of the Version Debate by

Douglas K Kutilek
Kutilek begins by caricaturing Pro-KJV advocates as people who
believe that the KJV is more inspired than the Hebrew and Greek
Scriptures, and that a person cannot be saved unless he uses the KJV
(27). Who are these people? He lists the following names: Benjamin G
Wilkinson, James Jasper Ray, David Otis Fuller, Peter Ruckman and
Edward F Hills. He equates D A Waite and David Cloud with Peter
Ruckman. This is not just a gross misrepresentation, but outright
dishonesty. It is common knowledge that both Dr Waite and Mr Cloud in
their writings have strongly denounced the KJV as doubly inspired and
advanced revelation heresy of Ruckman. A simple search in the internet
would bear this out. Kutilek is malicious.
It is also ridiculous to allege that Pro-KJV advocates would deem a
person unsaved unless he uses the KJV. Let me ask Mr Kutilek: Can a
person be saved by reading a tract, a testimony, or a Christian novel? Is a
person automatically or necessarily saved if he hears the gospel preached
from the KJV? Is a Roman Catholic or a member of a cult saved if he
uses and keeps on using the KJV?
Can a person be saved through the NIV? The Trinitarian Bible
Society answers: The NIV contains enough truth to be used of the Holy
Spirit to draw a man to the Saviour. But although it contains truth, is it
the very Word of God? If not, Christians must be urged to return to the
truth. We do not deny that sinners may be saved through corrupt or
mutilated versions if such versions contain enough of the gospel. This
however does not mean that God sanctions such versions or that the
Church should continue using them. God holds all His people responsible
for using the most faithful translation based on the purest text.
It looks like One Bible Only? to make its case needed a spin-doctor,
and who better than Kutilek? Well, it must be noted that Kutilek did an
exquisite job in transgressing the 9th commandment (Exod 20:16).
Kutilek then attempts to psychoanalyse the KJV/TR-Only
movement. He says that the KJV/TR-Only mindset is a result of its need
for certainty. Kutilek says that the Christian can be certain about the
450
doctrines of salvation and have full assurance of everlasting life because

God explicitly states them in His Word, but he objects to any kind of
certainty with regard to the providential preservation of Gods Word (28).
He argues that Gods people can only be certain of an inspired Bible as
originally given, but they cannot be at all certain that they will
continually have an inspired Scripture. Quoting Burgon, he says that God
[n]ever made any promise in the Scripture of the inerrant and infallible
transmission of the Bible from the originals (28). We do not deny that
copying mistakes were made during the transmission process. However,
this in no way negates the fact that despite the copying mistakes made in
the transcription process, God providentially made sure that none of His
words would be lost. The great 17th century Calvinist theologian
Francis Turretinrightly said that God cannot be at all careless in
providentially preserving His wordsNor can we readily believe that
God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these inspired
(theopneustois) men, would not take care of their entire preservation. If
men use the utmost care diligently to preserve their words (especially if
they are of any importance, as for example a testament or contract) in
order that it may not be corrupted, how much more, must we suppose,
would God take care of his word which he intended as a testament and
seal of his covenant with us, so that it might not be corrupted. Turretin
does not deny scribal errors in the copying process but he says that even
if some manuscripts could be corrupted, yet all could not (Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, 1:71-72).
Kutilek denies the doctrine of biblical preservation. Quoting
Burgon, Kutilek says there is no biblical basis whatsoever that the
original autographs of Scripture have been perfectly preserved in a
particular text, text family, or English translation (28, 49). If Burgon
were alive today, he would surely have disavowed any association with
Kutilek and would have castigated his erroneous views. Consider what
Burgon had written concerning the inspired Scriptures, There exists no
reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus
gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, straightway abdicated His
office; took no further care of His work; abandoned those precious
writings to their fate. all down the ages the Sacred Writings must
needs have been Gods peculiar care; that the Church under Him has
watched over them with intelligence and skill; has recognised which
copies exhibit a fabricated, which an honestly transcribed text; has
451
generally sanctioned the one, and generally disallowed the other. I am

utterly disinclined to believeso grossly improbable does it seemthat
at the end of 1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose will
prove untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which
remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown, will be
found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit originally
inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that Gods promise has
so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years much of the text of the
Gospel has in point of fact to be picked by a German critic out of a wastepaper basket in the convent of St. Catherine; and that the entire text had
to be remodeled after the pattern set by a couple of copies which had
remained in neglect during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their
survival to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to
pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from them (The
Traditional Text, 11-12).
Quoting Burgon, Kutilek argued against the divine promise of the
providential preservation of the original Holy Scriptures. He quoted
Burgon as saying, That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts
would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of
whatever sort, was not to have been expected; certainly, was never
promised (28). Let me quote Burgon in context, and you, the reader, can
judge for yourself whether the good Dean believed in the special
providential preservation of the Scriptures or not: The Church,
remember, hath been from the beginning the Witness and Keeper of
Holy Writ. Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest
measure, the Spirit of Truth; and pledge Himself that it should be that
Spirits special function to guide her children into all the Truth?
That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be protected all
down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort,was not to
have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But the Church, in
her collective capacity, hath neverthelessas a matter of factbeen
perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which
once everywhere abounded within her pale (Revision Revised, 334-335).
As much as the Lord had guided His Church in identifying the New
Testament Canon, so also did He guide her to identify the NT Text which
Burgon averred was not the Revised and Apostate Text of Westcott and
Hort, but the Received and Preserved Text of the 16th Century Protestant
Reformation.
452
As regards the KJV, Burgon wrote, Our Authorised Version is the

one religious link which at present binds together ... millions of Englishspeaking men scattered over the earths surface. Is it reasonable that so
unutterably precious, so sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake
of representing certain words more accurately,here and there
translating a tense with greater precision,getting rid of a few
archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no Revision of our
Authorised Version, however, judiciously executed, will ever occupy the
place of public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the
Translators of 1611,the noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon
language. We shall in fact never have another Authorised Version.
As something intended to supercede our present English Bible, we are
thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not to be
entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely
(Revision Revised, 113-114). Does not Dean Burgon sound very KJVOnly? Till today the KJV remains the best selling Bible.
Did Dean Burgon believe in an existing infallible and inerrant
Bible? There is no question he did. Using the analogy of Jesus Christ as
God incarnatethe Theanthroposforever, Burgon argued, As He was
perfect and faultless, so do we deem it (i.e. the Scriptures) infallible also,
without spot or blemish of any kind. We reject as monstrous any theory
of Inspiration, (as it is called,) which imputes blunders to the work of the
Holy Ghost. How mysterious is the record,so methodical, so
particular, so unique; preserving the very words which were syllabled in
Paradise, and describing transactions which no one but the Holy Ghost is
competent to declare! Come lower down, and where will you find more
beautiful narratives,still fresh at the end of three and four thousand
years,than those stories of Patriarchs, Judges, Kings, which wrap up
divinest teaching in all their ordinary details: where every word is
weighed in a heavenly balance, fraught with a divine purpose, and
intended for some glorious issue: Surely we have become too familiar
with the providence which has preserved to us the very words of the four
Evangelists, if we can bend our thoughts in the direction of the Gospel
without a throb of joy and wonder not to be described, at having so great
a treasure placed within our easy reach. Can it indeed be, that I may listen
while the disciple whom Jesus loved is discoursing the miracles, and
recalling the sayings of his Lord? May I hear St. Peter himself address the
early Church,or know the precise words of the message which St. Jude
453
sent to the first believers,or be shown the Epistle which the Lords
cousin addressed to the Twelve Tribes scattered abroad? How does it
happen that the Book is not for ever in our hands which comes to us with
such claims to our undivided homage? (Inspiration and Interpretation,
4, 6).
How infallible and inerrant is the Bible? Dean Burgon was at his
best when he answered thus, The Bible is none other than the voice of
Him that sitteth upon the Throne! Every Book of it,every Chapter of
it,every Verse of it,every word of it,every syllable of it,(where
are we to stop?)every letter of itis the direct utterance of the Most
High!pasa graphe theopneustos. Well spake the Holy Ghost, by the
mouth of the many blessed Men who wrote it.The Bible is none other
than the Word of God: not some part of it more, some part of it less; but
all alike, the utterance of Him who sitteth upon the Throne;absolute,
faultless,unerring,supreme! (Inspiration and Interpretation, 89).
Kutilek put words into the mouths of Pro-KJV principals by saying
that they believe the KJV to be as inspired and as infallible and inerrant
as the original language Scriptures. We make no such claim. We believe
that the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English
Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two
Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no
equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did
such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold
up the Authorised Version and say This is the Word of God! while at the
same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the
underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also
compare Scripture with Scripture (The Dean Burgon Society, Articles
of Faith, section II.A). No translation can claim to be 100% equivalent
to the original language Scriptures, but if it is a true, faithful, accurate
translation based on the preserved text, it is the Word of God. The Textus
Receptus is like the platinum yardstick of the Smithsonian Institute,
accurate to the last decimal point. The KJV on the other hand is like the
wooden yardstick used in the homes and shops. Would anyone deny that
the common yardstick though not the perfect yardstick of the
Smithsonian Institute is any less a yardstick and fit to measure?
I think you can see clearly now how spin-doctor Kutilek has not
only distorted and misrepresented Hills, Fuller, Waite, Cloud et al, but
454
also Burgon, by telling us that the eminent Dean of Chichester, who

fought so hard against Westcott and Hort and their corrupt Greek Text
and KJV Revision, did not believe he had an infallible and inerrant Bible,
quoting him out of context. It must be brought to your attention that when
Burgon spoke of mistakes, he was talking about Transcription, and not
the Text itself! This is a significant distinction. Burgon also had a very
high view of the KJV and cautioned any revision of it.
Kutilek laments that the KJV/TR-Only movement has caused
conflict and division, and is destructive and distractive (49). Does
not Kutilek understand that Truth is a Sword that divides? Jesus said, I
came not to send peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34). Peace and unity at the
expense of truth and purity is utter folly (read my paper, Love Divides,
Truth Unites in The Burning Bush 6 [2000]: 1-6). Kutilek wants those
who believe in an infallible and inerrant Bible today to shut up. It would
be very easy for those who believe in the verbal plenary inspiration and
preservation of the Holy Scriptures to simply keep quiet and let things be.
But that would be treachery! For do I now persuade men, or God? or do
I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant
of Christ (Gal 1:10). We ought to obey God rather than men (Acts
5:29). (Read Dr John C Whitcomb, When Love Divorces Doctrine and
Unity Leaves Truth in my book, Biblical Separation: Doctrine of
Church Purification and Preservation [Singapore: FEBC Press, 1999],
106-114.)
Our earnest contention for the inerrancy and infallibility of an extant
Bible in the original languages is not an act of schism but of love for both
God and man. We are intent on teaching all the counsel of God (Acts
20:27); we can do no less. Like the biblical doctrine of separation, the
doctrine of the verbal plenary preservation taught in the Holy Scriptures
and affirmed in the Reformation creeds is sorely neglected today. It is
about time the Church be indoctrinated with the twin doctrines of verbal
plenary inspiration and verbal plenary preservation in order to be
vaccinated against the diseases of limited inerrancy and imperfect
preservation as taught by neo-evangelicalism and neo-fundamentalism
respectively.
455
The Old Testament Text and the Version Debate by

Roy E Beacham
In Beachams chapter, we see Darwinian rationalism in action.
Beacham believes in the evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote
that because the Hebrew Scriptures evolved (58, 63), it is impossible
to suppose that Jewish scholars in the first century A.D. restored all of the
very words of the original writings exactly as they were originally
written (62). His view of the Hebrew Scriptures is not only atheistic (he
denies Gods providential preservation of His Scripture), but also
agnostic (he denies the Church today can be certain she has an absolutely
inerrant and infallible Scripture). No reader will fail to see that God is
totally left out of the picture in his treatment of the history of the Hebrew
Scriptures.
Beacham says that it is impossible to be sure that the Jewish people
themselves had an inerrant and infallible Hebrew Old Testament at the
time of the first century. Well, let us hear what the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself had said about the divinely inspired Hebrew Scriptures in AD
27. Jesus in no uncertain terms declared that the Hebrew Scriptures the
Jews had at that time, which were not the autographs, were word perfect
to the jot and tittle, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:17-18). I believe Jesus, not Beacham.
(More on Matt 5:17-18 later on.)
Beachams chapter is nothing more than a Bible-doubting and faithdenying chapter. Beachams Hebrew Bible contains mistakes. Only
Moses, David and the Old Testament prophets had perfect Bibles, but
poor us, we do not have such perfect Bibles today! We Christians in this
age are somehow less privileged. God did not care to preserve all of His
words for us.
I submit to you that Central Seminarys imperfectly preserved Bible
is no different from Fuller Seminarys limitedly inerrant Bible. Neoevangelicalism has a new sister in neo-fundamentalism. Gods people had
an infallible and inerrant Bible then but not now. What good is the Bible
if it was perfect only then, but not now? What use is it to believe in a
perfect God who is unable to preserve for us His infallible and inerrant
Word? If God is incapable of preserving His words, how can we be sure
456
He is able to preserve our salvation to the very end? We can have no

confidence in the salvation He offers.
In Neo-fundamentalism, I see a strain of Neo-theism. The current
Neo-theism questions Gods omniscience; One Bible Only? questions
Gods omnipotence. Dr Carl McIntire was prophetic when he described
this present compromising age of weak evangelical/fundamentalist
scholarship: What is so interesting about all this is that, in talking about
the mighty acts of God and trying to make out of our God a great and
powerful God, they have produced for us a God who is unable to give us
a record that is true (McIntire Maxims, 8).
In Beachams chapter, I hear not the voice of my Saviour, but the
voice, nay, the noise of a stranger. I will not follow (John 10:27).
The New Testament Text and the Version Debate by

W Edward Glenny
Glenny continues with One Bible Only?s goal in undermining the
inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. With a scholarly air, he
sniffs at the Textus Receptus and hawks the Westcott and Hort text as the
superior text. He swallows hook, line and sinker the Westcott and Hort
theory that earlier, more difficult, and shorter readings are the better
readings as opposed to the later, easier, and longer readings of the
Traditional Text (79). He touts the Alexandrian text-type as the best texttype now extant, citing modernists Metzger and Aland for support (96).
What a travesty of conservative biblical scholarship when slow-to-believe
fundamentalists kowtow to the Bible-denying scholarship of theological
modernism! Dean Burgon and Dr E F Hills would have been much safer
guides!
It is thus no surprise that Glenny should blunder in disparaging the
Traditional Text. Just like Westcott and Hort, Glenny would like to play
textual-critical pope. Believing the Traditional Text to be inferior, he
wrote, The fact that no Greek manuscript with this text type is known
from before the fourth century makes it questionable whether it existed
before that time (78). This allegation is blatantly false. It ought to be
noted that this whole text-type paradigm and recension myth is a
dreamt-up invention of Westcott and Hort and textual critics of their
mould to confuse the transmission history of the original Scriptures in
support of their Critical Text. Dean Burgon has rightly and justifiably
457
written off the imaginary recension of the Traditional Text concocted by

Westcott and Hort: They supply no information. They are never
supported by a particle of intelligible evidence. They are often
demonstrably wrong, and always unreasonable. They are Dictation, not
Criticism. they are perceived to be the veriest foolishness also
(Revision Revised, 95; see also John William Burgon and the New
Testament by Wilbur N Pickering in True or False? ed David Otis
Fuller, 216-257). If we really want to talk about text-types and textual
history, there are basically and clearly only two lines: the preserved and
the corrupted (see The Transmission of the NT Greek Text chart on
page 19).
It is equally false for Glenny to say that the antiquity of the
Traditional or Preserved Text cannot be proven. Dr Harry Sturz (who
incidentally is no friend of TR/KJV preservationists) in his study of the
early papyri concluded in no uncertain terms that there is valid evidence
that distinctive Byzantine (Traditional) readings were not created in the
fourth century (contra Westcott and Hort) but were already in existence
before the end of the second (The Byzantine Text Type and New
Testament Textual Criticism, 69). It is therefore wrongheaded to consider
the Traditional Text to be late and fabricated (the pontification of neoevangelical Daniel Wallace and charismatic Gordon Fee
notwithstanding). As a fundamentalist, Glenny ought to be quick to
defend the inerrancy of Scripture, but we find him doing just the
opposite, undermining the Scriptures whenever he gets the opportunity.
Glenny favours the ever-changing Greek Text of the United Bible
Societies now in its 4th revised edition, and that of Nestle-Aland which
has already gone through a whopping 27 revisions (79). The above
Critical Greek Texts are offsprings of the corrupt Westcott and Hort Text.
The Textus Receptus, on the other hand, since the Reformation period has
remained essentially a uniform text until Anglican liberals Westcott and
Hort came into the scene with their Revised Greek Text. Instead of
trusting in the providentially guided textual decisions of Erasmus,
Stephanus, Beza, and finally the KJV translators who were no doubt
Bible-believers and Bible-defenders with a high view of Scripture,
Glenny would rather trust the textual-critical work of Westcott and Hort
who not only denied the historicity of the creation account in Genesis,
but also the inerrancy of Scripture. Hort wrote this of Darwins theory of
evolution, But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin.
458
NEW TESTAMENT GREEK TEXT

AUTOGRAPHS
APOGRAPHS
CORRUPTED
(ALEXANDRIAN TEXT)
Codex
Sinaiticus
PRESERVED
(BYZANTINE TEXT)
Codex
Vaticanus
MINORITY TEXT
th
(Rejected by end of 4 Century)
MAJORITY TEXT
(Acknowledged & copied faithfully)
TEXTUS RECEPTUS
Erasmus TR (1516-35)
Stephanus TR (1546-51)
Bezas TR (1565-98)
Discovered in 1860s
Promoted by
WESTCOTT & HORT
W-H TEXT
(1881)
ERV
(1881-85)
ASV
(1901)
NESTLE-ALAND
GREEK NT
KJV TR
(1604-11)
Tyndale
(1525)
UNITED BIBLE
SOCIETIES
GREEK NT
KJV (1611)
Coverdale
(1535)
1st major editing

(1617-29)
Matthew
(1537)
2nd major editing

(1762-69)
Great
(1539)
POLISH
Biblia Gdanska
(1632)
Geneva
(1560)
Elzevirs TR
(1624-33)
Bishops
(1568)
FRENCH
Martin Bible
(1701)
Modern English
Versions
(NIV, RSV,
TEV, NASB,
ESV, etc)
Defended by
DEAN BURGON
Scriveners TR
(1894)
THE MANY BIBLES OF ECUMENISM,

MODERNISM, NEO-EVANGELICALISM
& NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM
GERMAN
Luthers Bible
(1522)
SPANISH
Reina-Valera
(1569-1602)
THE ONE BIBLE OF HISTORIC OR REFORMED

FUNDAMENTALISM
459
Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be

contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more
detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable
(Hort, Life, I:416). Horts sidekick Westcott believed the first three
chapters of Genesis to be myth, No one now, I suppose, holds that the
first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could
never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think
they did (Westcott, Life, I:78). Can we trust Westcott and Hort in making
correct judgements concerning the text when they show themselves to be
entirely faithless in Gods record of His creation? By faith we believe in
the truthfulness of the Genesis account that God created this whole
universe out of nothing (ex nihilo) in six literal days by the power of His
Word. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the
word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things
which do appear (Heb 11:3). But without faith it is impossible to please
him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him (Heb 11:6).
Westcott and Horts denial of biblical inerrancy is seen in their
translation of 2 Tim 3:16. In their English Revised Version (ERV), they
rendered the verse this way, Every Scripture inspired of God is also
profitable. By placing the copula is after inspired of God, the
clause is made to mean that not all parts of Scripture are inspired of God;
only those portions which are inspired are profitable. The KJV
translators, on the other hand, correctly placed the copula is right after
All Scripture: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable. It is no wonder that when the ERV came out in 1881, the
great Presbyterian scholar, Robert L Dabney, wrote a scathing attack
against Westcott and Horts rendering of 2 Tim 3:16 in the Southern
Presbyterian Review of July 1881, The poisonous suggestion intended is
that, among the parts of the scripture some are inspired and some are
not. Our Bible contains fallible parts! The very doctrine of the Socinian
and Rationalist. This treacherous version the revisers [viz. Westcott and
Hort] have gratuitously sanctioned! Indeed as modernists, Westcott and
Hort were not fit to handle the Scriptures. They cannot be trusted. I
cannot but agree with Dabney who soundly castigated the corrupt Greek
Text of Westcott and Hort and their English Revised (Per)Version as
coming from the mind of infidel rationalism (quoted in Paisley, My
Plea for the Old Sword, 14).
460
Glenny disparages the Textus Receptus of Erasmus by the oft-heard

Westcott-Hort complaint that Erasmus edited his text hastily and
carelessly (82). We do not deny the fact that the very first edition of
Erasmuss Text was less than perfect. Erasmus was hurried by his
publisher to meet the deadline. To be fair, it must be told that Erasmus
took pains to correct whatever mistakes there were in his subsequent
editions in 1519, 1522 and 1527. Stephanus who took over the editing of
the Textus Receptus relied on Erasmuss last two editions and not his first
for sure. This age-old tactic to cast doubt on Erasmuss Textus Receptus
was ably denounced by Dean Burgon, To raise an irrelevant discussion,
at the outset, concerning the Textus Receptus:to describe the haste with
which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the N.T.:to
make sport about the copies which he employed:all this kind of thing is
proceeding of one who seeks to throw dust into their eyes:to divert
their attention from the problem actually before them:not(as we
confidently expect when we have to do with such writers as these)the
method of a sincere lover of Truth (Revision Revised, 17-18).
Glenny then went on to undermine the classic biblical proof-text for
the doctrine of the Trinity, namely, 1 John 5:7 (83). He repeated
Metzgers myth that Erasmus promised to include 1 John 5:7 if a Greek
manuscript could be presented to him that contained the text (83). H J De
Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on
Erasmus, has convincingly argued, giving evidence that Metzgers view
on Erasmuss promise has no foundation in Erasmuss work.
Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult
passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise
(cited in Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8,
265; full bibliography of primary source: Henk J De Jonge. Erasmus and
the Comma Johanneum. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56
[1980]: 38189). Metzger eventually admitted his error in the 3rd edition
of his bookThe Text of the New Testamentbut hid it under a footnote
on a distant page (how convenient!). For further study, read my paper,
Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the Trinity?:
A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the
Johannine Comma (1 Jn 5:7f), Foundation, May-June 2000, 34-5;
reprinted in 50 Years Building His Kingdom, Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church anniversary magazine, 2000, 87-8.
461
Glenny says, The history of the TR leaves no doubt that the text
has changed many times. This is a major problem for those who claim
that it exactly represents the originals (86). Let me say that it is only a
problem to Glenny, not to those who hold to a TR-superiority position. Dr
Hills provides a better interpretation and perspective of the history of the
TR: The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were Godguided. They were set up under the leading of Gods special providence.
Hence the differences between them were kept down to a minimum. But
these disagreements were not eliminated altogether, for this would
require not merely providential guidance but a miracle. In short, God
chose to preserve the New Testament text providentially rather than
miraculously, and this is why the several editions of the Textus Receptus
vary from each other slightly (The King James Version Defended, 222223).
Which of the TRs then exactly represents the originals? Dr Hills
answered, The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the
common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon
which more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the
stamp of His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more
precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version (The King
James Version Defended, 223). Thus Dr Waites personal conviction that
the words of the Received Greek and Masoretic Hebrew text that
underlie the King James Bible are the very words which God has
preserved down through the centuries, being the exact words of the
originals themselves, with which Glenny has taken issue, is entirely
defensible. Simply apply the logic of faith, and apply it consistently.
The doctrine of the special providential preservation of Scripture as
affirmed in the Reformation creeds demands such a view of an inerrant
and infallible original language Scripture that underlies the KJV.
Reformed author, G I Williamson, did write to this effect in his
commentary on the Westminster Confession concerning preservation,
This brings us to the matter of Gods singular care and providence by
which He has kept pure in all ages this original text, so that we now
actually possess it in authentical form. And let us begin by giving an
illustration from modern life to show that an original document may be
destroyed, without the text of that document being lost. Suppose you
were to write a will. Then suppose you were to have a photographic copy
of that will made. If the original were then destroyed, the photographic
462
copy would still preserve the text of that will exactly the same as the
original itself (emphasis his). The text of the copy would differ in no way
whatever from the original, and so it would possess exactly the same
truth and meaning as the original. Now of course photography was not
invented until long after the original copy had been worn out or lost.
How then could the original text of the Word of God be preserved? The
answer is that God preserved it by His own remarkable care and
providence (The Westminster Confession of Faith, 15).
Glenny goes on to contend that the KJV of 1611 is different from
the KJV printed today. He went on to argue that the 1769 edition of the
KJV which is the KJV being used today differs from the 1611 KJV in at
least 75,000 details (90). He then ridiculed the Pro-KJV position with
these words, for the King James-Only advocate, such differences are
more than an embarrassment; they are a contradiction of the King JamesOnly position. How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that
should be changed? (91). Let me answer Glennys false charge. No sane
Pro-KJV defender would ever say that the KJV is inspired in the same
way the original Scriptures were. No right thinking Pro-KJV advocate
would say that the KJV is advanced revelation and hence superior to
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. That is Ruckmans heretical position,
not Burgon, Fuller, Hills, Waite, Cloud, nor mine. It is absolutely
misleading to say that there are 75,000 details of differences as Glenny
would have us believe. Dr Waite through personal study discovered that
the differences between the 1611 and 1769 KJV have mainly to do with
spelling and punctuation (Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions,
73-76). The KJV of 1611 and that of 1769 are essentially the same.
The Preservation of Scripture and the Version Debate by

W Edward Glenny
The most damaging chapter of One Bible Only? is this very chapter
that denies Gods special providential preservation of His Holy
Scriptures. Glenny says yes to the total inspiration of Scripture but no to
its entire preservation. Glenny says that The Scriptures teach inspiration
and inerrancy in relation to only the original autographs (103). For
support, he cites the [Neo]-Evangelical Theological Societys (ETS)
statement on biblical inerrancy: The Bible alone, and the Bible in its
entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the
autographs (102). Let me just point out that the ETS statement is too
463
general to be definitive. Although it says that inerrancy is in the

autographs, it does not say at all that it is confined to the autographs
alone. Thus, the ETS statement does not necessarily support Glennys
theory of Sola Autographa.
The whole concept of Sola Autographa is a new doctrine introduced
by 19th century liberalism, picked up by 20th century neo-evangelicalism,
and now championed by 21 st century neo-fundamentalism. The 16th
century Reformation scholars have always spoken in terms of Sola
Scriptura, and not Sola Autographa. They always assumed the
infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture in terms of Autographa cum
Apographa. Prof Richard Muller of Calvin Theological Seminary rightly
observed, The Protestant scholastics do not press the point made by their
nineteenth-century followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the
freedom of Scripture from error reside absolutely in the autographa and
only in a derivative sense in the apographa; rather, the scholastics argue
positively that the apographa preserve intact the true words of the
prophets and the apostles and that the God-breathed (theopneustos, q.v.)
character of Scripture is manifest in the apographa as well as the
autographa. In other words, the issue primarily addressed by the
seventeenth-century orthodox in their discussion of the autographa is the
continuity of the extant copies in Hebrew and in Greek with the originals
both quoad res, with respect to the thing or subject of the text, and quoad
verba, with respect to the words of the text (Dictionary of Latin and
Greek Theological Terms, s.v. autographa).
If one were to ask Glenny whether he has an infallible and inerrant
Bible today, his answer would have to be no. Do we have all of Gods
inspired words today? Glenny answers, We might have lost a few words
through negligence, but the amount that has been lost is so minimal that it
has no effect on overall doctrine and little, if any, on historical or other
details (121). In other words, the Church today has only a 99% and not a
100% inspired Scripture because God has allowed perhaps 1% of His
inspired words to be lost. But Glenny assures us that the 1% that is lost
does not affect our doctrine, nor our salvation. What foolish thinking!
What dangerous teaching! It directly opposes what Jesus said in Matt 4:4,
It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God. If Jesus said every word of
Scripture is important for His people, surely He would preserve every
inspired word for His people throughout the ages. Jesus does not lie. I
464
believe Jesus injunction that man should live by His every word is
true. And for the Christian in every generation to live by His every
word, He must necessarily preserve His every word. I believe Jesus
kept His promise, and He as God surely cannot fail.
Glenny quoted six modern confessions (one from a theological
society that militant fundamentalists would deem neo-evangelical, and
five from theological seminaries mostly Baptist of the same antipreservationist stripe) to argue that only the Autographs were inspired,
infallible and inerrant. Glenny quoted notorious anti-KJV advocate, Dan
Wallace of Dallas, to argue that the doctrine of preservation was not a
doctrine of the ancient church, and that the doctrine of preservation
first appeared in a church creed in the Westminster Confession of 1647
(116). The implication is that such a doctrine never existed until it was
stated in a 17th century creed, in the Westminster Confession of Faith. By
the same logic, one would also have to conclude that the doctrine of the
100% deity and 100% humanity of Christ in one Person never existed
prior to its appearance in the 4th century Athanasian Creed! What ill
logic! The doctrine of the 100% inspiration and 100% preservation of
Gods Holy Word existed even before the Westminster Confession as
much as the doctrine of the 100% deity and 100% humanity of Christ
existed before the Athanasian Creed. The doctrine of 100% inspiration
and 100% preservation of Gods words in the Holy Scriptures is not a
new doctrine but a very old one. It certainly did not begin with D A
Waite, nor E F Hills, nor J W Burgon, but with the Holy Scripture itself.
The doctrine of preservation is as old as the Bible. Why is the Bible our
Supreme, Final, and All-sufficient Authority in faith and life? It is
precisely because it is Gods Perfect Word, infallible and inerrant, even
today!
Now Glenny says he believes in providential preservation. This is
what he says, but what does he mean? Do know that when Glenny says
he believes in preservation, he does not mean entire preservation but
essential preservation; it is conceptual preservation, not verbal
preservation; only the vital doctrines are preserved, not the inspired
words (122).
Does the Bible teach partial and conceptual preservation or plenary
and verbal preservation? The Bible and the Protestant Church creeds
affirm the latter. The Reformed Confessions in both Presbyterian and
Baptist circles affirm not just the 100% inspiration of the Autographs, but
465
also the 100% preservation of the Autographs in the faithful Apographs

that have come down to us today. The Westminster Confession of Faith
(1.8) for instance states, The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the
native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in
Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known
to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular
care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so
as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto
them. Note that the Westminster Confession did not use the term
Autographs but spoke of the Scriptures in terms of the original
languages (Hebrew OT and Greek NT). The Westminster Confession
clearly affirms the 100% inspiration (immediately inspired by God)
and 100% preservation (by His singular care and providence, kept pure
in all ages) of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages.
Francis Turretin as quoted earlier expounded on the early
confessional doctrine of Biblical preservation and understood it to mean
entire preservation: Nor can we readily believe that God, who dictated
and inspired each and every word to these inspired (theopneustois) men,
would not take care of their entire preservation. Know that Turretin was
no ordinary theologian. His Systematic Theology textbook was used in
Princeton Seminary until Warfield came into the scene with his radical
and new Autographal view of the original text which opened the door
to liberal textual criticism that has spawned a whole new generation of
critical texts and modern perversions of the Scriptures that seek to
displace the time-tested and time-honoured TR and KJV.
Glenny says that there is no biblical basis whatsoever to believe that
God has preserved His inspired Scripture perfectly so that none of His
words would be lost. He claims that not only is Scripture without a verse
to explain how God will preserve His Word, but no statement in Scripture
teaches that God did preserve perfectly the original text of Scripture in
one manuscript, one family of manuscripts, or even in all of the
manuscripts (123). Such a deistic view of God and His Scripture is
indeed strange considering that it comes from the mouth of a
fundamentalist who claims to believe only the Bible (Sola Scriptura).
Glenny says he believes in the providential preservation of Scripture, but
cannot prove his belief from the Scriptures. He admits there is no biblical
basis for his belief. On what does he base his faith then? His faith is
based on the evidence of history (121). Now any honest historian
466
would acknowledge that what is called evidence of history may be

interpreted in a number of ways. From the human perspective, there is no
such thing as one history but many histories. History is subject to human
interpretation and thus cannot be an infallible authority. Only the
infallible Scripture which is not only inerrant in matters of faith but also
science, history and geography can serve as our infallible Guide in
interpreting the things of the cosmos. It is only when we read history
through the lens of Gods Word will we interpret history accurately.
Every fundamentalist knows that the supreme and final authority of faith
is the infallible and inerrant Scriptures. Glenny has therefore undermined
Sola Scriptura here.
Glenny undermined not only Sola Scriptura, but also the many
verses that teach the providential preservation of the Scripture, the more
important ones being Matt 5:18 and Ps 12:6-7 (116-121). On Matt 5:18,
Glenny said, This passage is not speaking about the continual
preservation, through written copies, of the exact words found in the
autographa; it is declaring that all of the prophecies in the OT that
pointed to Christ will be fulfilled down to the smallest detail. Matthew
5:18 does not even refer to the NT text, let alone speak of its perfect,
supernatural preservation (116). I am amazed by Glennys muddled
theology and constipated interpretation of Matt 5:18. From where did he
learn his theology and hermeneutics? Glenny says that Matt 5:18 does not
mean preservation at all. His constipated exegesis has led him to
conclude that the text merely speaks of the fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecies. Not only that, he contends that the verse has nothing to do
with the New Testament whatsoever.
First, let me demonstrate how Glenny is theologically muddled.
When theologians want to prove the verbal inspiration of Scripture,
which verse would they cite? Where in the Bible are we taught that every
word of the Bible is inspired to the last jot and tittle? Is it not Matt 5:18?
In The Moody Handbook of Theology, Paul Enns wrote, In His use of the
Old Testament Christ gave credence to the inspiration of the entire Old
Testament. In Matthew 5:17-18 Christ affirmed that not the smallest letter
or stroke would pass from the law until it would be fulfilled. In v.17 He
referred to the law or the prophets, a common phrase designating the
entire Old Testament. In this rather strong statement, Jesus affirmed the
inviolability of the entire Old Testament and thereby affirmed the
inspiration of the entire Old Testament. So this verse does not only mean
467
the fulfillment of prophecies as Glenny would have us believe, but the

inspiration of the entire Old Testament. If Glenny is correct that this verse
cannot be applied to the providential preservation of the Old Testament,
then by the same token it cannot be used for the verbal inspiration of the
Old Testament either. If we apply Glennys hermeneutics on Rev 22:1819, then we must also say that God forbade the tampering of the Book of
Revelation only, and not the rest of the Bible. Does this make sense? It
goes without saying that Glennys hermeneutical method is utterly
flawed.
Second, does Matt 5:18 refer only to the Old Testament and cannot
in any way include the New? And does not Matt 5:18 teach just the
verbal inspiration but also verbal preservation of the entire Scripture? Let
us hear from Matthew Henry: Heaven and earth shall come together, and
all the fulness thereof be wrapt up in ruin and confusion, rather than any
word of God shall fall to the ground, or be in vain. The word of the Lord
endures for ever, both that of the law [i.e. OT], and that of the gospel [i.e.
NT]. for whatever belongs to God, and bears his stamp, be it ever so
little, shall be preserved. Here in Matthew Henry we find a sane and
sound exposition of this precious verse. The original language Scriptures
are not only fully inspired but also entirely preserved, and as such we can
say that we have the infallible and inerrant Word of God today!
Not only Matthew Henry, the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) uses
Matt 5:18 to prove the entire preservation of Holy Scripture as well. The
TBS booklet on The Greek New Testament states, God has promised in
His Word that He would not only preserve His Word for generations to
come, but that His Word was permanent and would be kept free from
corruption. Matthew 5.18 states For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
all be fulfilled. These verses demonstrate that God has not left His
church for centuries without an authoritative copy of the Word of God,
but that Gods people down through the ages have faithfully copied and
recopied copies of the original autographs. The church all over the world
has used the Traditional Text in all its various forms, and God has seen fit
to multiply multitudes of copies and has brought salvation to many
generations through this preservation process.
It is important to note again that both the Westminster Confession
and the Helvetic Consensus Formula cite Matt 5:18 as proof for the
divine inspiration and providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
468
The clear and categorical statements of 100% inspiration and 100%

preservation made by the Westminster divines were what led Pittsburgh
Prof William F Orr to conclude, this affirms that the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the
identical with the first text that God had kept pure in all the ages. The
Confession of Faith.
Not only did Glenny fallaciously dismiss Matt 5:18, but also Ps
12:6-7 as a proof-text for the preservation of Gods words (119-120). Ps
12:6-7 reads, The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in
thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Glenny denies
that the words keep them and preserve them in verse 7 refer to the
words of the LORD in verse 6. He interprets verse 7 to mean the
preservation of Gods people (v5) rather than Gods words (v6). He
argues, The pronoun them in verse 7 (thou shalt keep them) cannot
refer to the words of verse 6 for grammatical reasons. It refers to the
poor and the needy of verse 5. Hebrew grammar requires that it be
the righteous whom God is keeping and preserving in verse 7. In Hebrew,
nouns and pronouns have gender and number, and the gender and number
of each pronoun normally should be the same as that of its antecedent.
The pronoun them (v.7a) is a masculine suffix whereas the noun words
(v.6a) is feminine. Furthermore, in the Hebrew text verse 7b reads, You
will preserve him from this generation for ever. This connection is
clear in the Hebrew because the pronoun on the verb preserve (v7b) is
third person, masculine, and singular (119-120).
All this sounds very good and convincing, but Glenny conveniently
hides (if he indeed knows his Hebrew grammar) the fact that his
explanation is not the only way in which the text can be read in Hebrew
grammar. Geseniuss Hebrew Grammar (440) states, Through a
weakening in the distinction of gender, which is noticeable elsewhere ...
And which probably passed from the colloquial language into that of
literature, masculine suffixes (especially in the plural) are not
infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives. Waltke and
OConnors Biblical Hebrew Syntax (302) likewise states: The
masculine pronoun is often used for a feminine antecedent. Glenny
469
purposely misleads when he says that pronouns normally should be the

same as that of its antecedent. Gesenius says it is not normal, for
masculine pronominal suffixes, in this case them in verse 7 are not
infrequently used to refer to feminine substantives, i.e. the words
(feminine noun) in verse 6. Waltke and OConnor say the same, The
masculine pronoun [i.e. them in verse 7] is often used for a feminine
antecedent [i.e. words of verse 6].
Glenny also argues from grammar that the word them in thou
shalt preserve them should be rendered as him and not them. That is
because it is in the Hebrew third person, masculine, and singular.
Although Glenny has declined the pronoun correctly, he neglects to tell
his readers of another grammatical rule that comes to play when a verb
with a pronominal suffix contains the energetic nun. The Rev S Y Quek
of the Far Eastern Bible College offers this grammatical counterpoint in
support of the KJV reading, It is true that the pronominal suffix for
preserve them in verse 7b is a third person masculine singular suffix
(him). Why did the KJV translators translate it as them? The key is
that in the addition of the suffix, the Holy Spirit wanted to emphasise the
verb preserve so that an energetic nun (the letter n) is added before
attaching the pronominal suffix. When this occurs an additional rule
comes into operation in the Hebrew language. There is no masculine
plural pronominal suffix in the third person when the energetic nun is
applied to a verb (see Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, 157-158, section 4, I).
Hence the Scripture writer, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
used the singular masculine pronominal suffix, retaining the same gender
as in keep them (verse 7a). Therefore it is again very legitimate and
consistent with Hebrew grammar for the KJV translators to translate the
masculine singular pronoun suffix with the energetic nun as a masculine
plural pronounthem.
In defence of the doctrine of preservation and the KJV rendering of
Ps 12:6-7, let me direct you to the Rev Peter W Van Kleeck, a Baptist
pastor and theologian who earned his double Masters from Westminster
and Calvin Seminaries, and was Director of the Institute of Biblical
Textual Studies. In his bookFundamentalisms Folly?Van Kleeck
took to task the nonsense spouted by Central Seminary in One Bible
Only?. Van Kleeck under the section, The Churchly Traditions
Rendering of Psalm 12:7, did a historical study of the interpretation of
this verse in an attempt to refute Edward Glenny who dogmatically
470
asserted that this verse cannot at all mean the preservation of Scripture.
Allow me to quote Van Kleeck: The evidence shows that the churchly
tradition allows them the breadth to include both people and Gods
words in its interpretation. the modern versions elect to overlook the
Reformations Hebrew basis for translation in Psalm 12:6-7; and the
churchly tradition is censored in the new versions and by Central
Seminary by not including a translation and interpretation that is broad
enough to include both oppressed people and Gods words. Glennys
modern, sectarian approach to the text had again limited the scope of his
exegesis. By so doing he has wrongly argued the false claim that there is
no text of Scripture that teaches providential preservation, and thereby
fails to meet the criterion of his premise. It ought to be highlighted that
One Bible Only? is an anti-preservationist book that has bowed the knee
to the textual-critical Baal of Westcott and Hort, and has undermined
Gods providential work over His Sacred Text during the Great
Reformation of the 16th century. And by so doing, they have done a great
disservice to the fundamentalist cause. No wonder Van Kleeck calls it
Fundamentalisms Folly.
Under the section Biblical Problems, Glenny reveals that he does
not believe he has an infallible and inerrant Scripture today. In Glennys
mind, God has not preserved 100% of His words. Based on such a
presupposition he allows and even recommends the scholarly approach
of conjectural emendations to the Hebrew text as introduced by liberal
scholars. Glenny desires to follow the liberal scholarly guild of Bible
correctors, but soothes his fundamentalist conscience by saying that he is
forced to do so (114).
In which places must the Bible be corrected? Glenny cites a number
of mistakes in the Bible: 2 Sam 8:4/1 Chron 18:4, 2 Kgs 8:26/2 Chron
22:2, 2 Kgs 24:8/2 Kgs 24:15. He pontificates, These obvious
discrepancies in the KJV and the Hebrew manuscripts on which it is
based show that none of them perfectly preserved the inspired
autographa (115). He goes on to demean Bible preservationists by
saying that they do not grapple with the problems, or pretend that they do
not exist. Of course, this is far from true.
Now, let us grapple with these so-called Biblical Problems or
biblical discrepancies. We do not run away from the fact that there are
such differences, contradictions, discrepancies in the Scriptures but the
question that needs to be asked is: Are such differences, contradictions,
471
discrepancies in the Bible merely apparent or actual errors? Based on the

biblical presupposition that we have a 100% inspired and 100%
preserved Scripture, we conclude that these discrepancies are only
apparent and not actual errors at all. Over against the modernist approach
of conjectural emendations, fundamentalist scholars solve such
problems by employing principles of harmonisation. Such differences
can be easily reconciled. There are often several possible solutions. True
fundamentalists would employ the Pauline hermeneutics in their
approach to discrepancies in the Bible, which is let God be true, but
every man a liar (Rom 3:4). Fundamentalists should never in any way
say the Bible contains mistakes. Our Bible is perfect, infallible, inerrant,
and we mean what we say, unlike Glenny and his company.
As regards 2 Kgs 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2 which read 22 years and 42
years respectively in the original Hebrew language Scripture, it ought to
be pointed out that even the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia lists no
textual variants. In other words, every existing Hebrew manuscript reads
22 and 42 respectively in those two verses. This reveals that no copying
mistakes were made, for if they were indeed scribal errors, the Masoretes
would have corrected them; why did they allow these mistakes to
remain unless they were not mistakes at all but were the very inspired
words of the original writers? Now the NIV and NASB went against the
Hebrew Bible and the KJV by changing 2 Chron 22:2 to read 22 instead
of 42, making it agree with 2 Kgs 8:26. Is this acceptable? Is Glenny now
going to say that the NIV and NASB can be more inspired than the
Hebrew Scripture? Is this not a sort of NIV/NASB Ruckmanism? Glenny
treads on dangerous waters for he is evidently more comfortable with
Speculative Modernist Theology than Fedeistic Fundamentalist
Theology.
I find myself in partial agreement with Glenny when he wrote, The
historical evidence for the preservation of Gods Word is similar to the
evidence we use to determine the limits of the biblical canon. No explicit
statement in Scripture details every book that is to be included in the
canon, but we hold fast to our conviction concerning the sixty-six books
in the canon on the basis of the historical evidence (122). Glenny went
on to quote J R McRay to support his case, The formation of the NT
canon must, therefore, be regarded as a process rather than an event.
Glenny affirms the historical evidence but denies the more important
biblical evidence. KJV/TR defenders, however, believe in the doctrine of
472
Bible preservation precisely because it is taught in the Scriptures, and see

Gods providential hand at work in preserving His inspired words in
history. History is certainly His Story. God is sovereign, omnipotent and
omniscient, and surely the entire preservation of His very own words to
the jot and tittle is not something beyond His control, power and wisdom.
As Glenny affirms, providential preservation is a process. The
Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) affirms this as well, and proves it through
the biblical and historical arguments. The TBS booklet on The Greek New
Testament states, God has promised in His Word that He would not only
preserve His Word for generations to come, but that His Word was
permanent and would be kept free from corruption. Matthew 5:18 states
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. These verses
demonstrate that God has not left His church for centuries without an
authoritative copy of the Word of God, but that Gods people down
through the ages have faithfully copied and recopied copies of the
original autographs. The church all over the world has used the
Traditional Text in all its various forms, and God has seen fit to multiply
multitudes of copies and has brought salvation to many generations
through this preservation process.
The question we need to ask now is this: Is there a historical
precedent that can be cited to prove that the process of divine
preservation of Scripture can result in a standard or a fixed text? The
answer is yes. The historical precedent is in the canonisation of the New
Testament. All the inspired New Testament books were completed by AD
90 when the Apostle John wrote the last book of Revelation, and God
warned against adding to or subtracting from His Word in Rev 22:18-19.
However, we know that in the first few centuries, there were uninspired
men who penned spurious writings and passed them off as Scripture.
Some of these were the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Nicodemus, the
Epistle of Barnabas, etc. Nevertheless, none of the inspired books of
Scripture have been lost or obscured in the canonical process. By the
providential guidance of the Holy Spirit, Gods people were led to
identify the 27 books to become our NT Canon, no more, no less. There
was a terminus to the canonisation of Scripture at the Council of
Carthage in AD 397. In like manner, the Lord allowed copyist errors and
corruptions to enter during the transcription process through the pen of
fallible scribes. Nevertheless, His providential hand kept His inspired
473
words of Scripture from being lost. In light of Gods providence, that

nothing happens by chance, and that history is under His sovereign
control, I believe that in the fulness of timein the most opportune time
of the Reformation when the true church separated from the false, when
the study of the original languages was emphasised, and the printing
press invented (which meant that no longer would there be any need to
handcopy the Scriptures thereby ensuring a uniform text)God restored
from out of a pure stream of preserved Hebrew and Greek manuscripts,
the purest Hebrew and Greek Text of allthe Text that underlies our
KJVthat accurately reflects the original Scriptures.
That the providential preservation of Scripture sees its historical
parallel in the providential canonisation of Scripture was Dean Burgons
thinking as well. Dr Hills wrote of Burgon: Burgon never lost sight
of the special providence of God which has presided over the
transmission of the New Testament down through the ages, expressly set
out to maintain against all opponents that the Church was divinely guided
to reject the false readings of the early centuries, and to gradually accept
the true text. He denied that he was claiming a perpetual miracle that
would keep manuscripts from being depraved at various times, and in
various places. But The Church in her collective capacity, has
neverthelessas a matter of factbeen perpetually purging herself of
those shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded with
her pale (The Revision Revised, 334-5). He believed that just as God
gradually settled the Canon of the New Testament by weaning His
churches from non-canonical books, so He did with the Text also.
Having said this, I must add that I am quite sure Glenny would
disagree with my interpretation of history as much as I disagree with his.
Wherein lies the disagreement? In this: Glenny believes that God has
providentially preserved the text of Scripture in multiple manuscripts
throughout history so that none of its doctrinal content is lost or affected
adversely (122). I, on the other hand, believe that God has providentially
preserved the text of Scripture in the majority of the manuscripts
throughout history so that none of its inspired words is lost or corrupted
totally. In other words, Glenny believes in conceptual preservation,
whereas I in verbal preservation.
Glennys position on preservation is quite similar to the liberals and
neo-evangelicals who argue for conceptual inspiration against verbal
inspiration. Fundamentalists have always believed in the verbal plenary
474
inspiration of the Scriptures, and by the same token it is only biblical and
logical that they should believe in the verbal plenary preservation of the
Scriptures. Why would God want to inspire His words without wanting to
preserve every one of them? The deistic heresy that God inspired His
Word but did nothing to preserve it must be rejected. No one denies that
some copying mistakes were made during the transmission process. But
the question is: Did God lose the words of the originals when the
autographs were destroyed? Although the Church does not have the
autographa (the very first scripts) today, she has the apographa (copies)
which reflect the autographa. Providentially speaking, the autographa
were neither lost nor destroyed.
It is quite illogical to say that only the doctrines are preserved, but
not the words. Without the words, where the doctrines? Without the
chicken, where the egg? Every word of Scripture is important for Biblical
doctrine, even the jots and the tittles. By way of illustration, a comma can
change the meaning of a whole sentence. Consider this: No man is
without sin and No, man is without sin. See what a difference a tiny
comma can make!
The doctrine of the special providential preservation of Scripture is
intrinsically linked to the doctrine of the miraculous inspiration of
Scripture. To deny one is to deny the other. Dr E F Hills was extremely
astute to observe that a fallacious view of preservation would invariably
lead one to a denial of the inspiration of the Scripture: Conservative
scholars ... say that they believe in the special, providential preservation
of the New Testament text. Most of them really dont though, because, as
soon as they say this, they immediately reduce this special providential
preservation to the vanishing point in order to make room for the
naturalistic theories of Westcott and Hort. As we have seen, some say that
the providential preservation of the New Testament means merely that the
same substance of doctrine is found in all the New Testament
documents. Others say that it means that the true reading is always
present in at least one of the thousands of extant New Testament
manuscripts. And still other scholars say that to them the special,
providential preservation of the Scriptures means that the true New
Testament text was providentially discovered in the mid-19th century by
Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort after having been lost for
1,500 years.
475
If you adopt one of these false views of the providential

preservation of Scriptures, then you are logically on your way toward the
denial of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. For if God has
preserved the Scriptures so carelessly, why would he have infallibly
inspired them in the first place? It is not sufficient therefore merely to say
that you believe in the doctrine of the special, providential preservation
of Holy Scriptures. You must really believe this doctrine and allow it to
guide your thinking. You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and
proceed according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the
Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version.
Glenny and his colleagues would do well to take heed of Hillss warning
and advice.
Translation Theory and Twentieth-Century Versions by

Robert W Milliman
What is the best Bible version or translation? Milliman gives a
Barthianistic, existential answer to this question when he said the most
appropriate answer though disappointing to some people, is, That
depends (134, 137). Such an answer displays a crass lack of spiritual
discernment. Such a wishy washy, ini-mini-myni-mo approach to
choosing a Bible does nobody any good. It is indeed simplistic and nave
of a Bible professor like Milliman to think that all Bibles are good.
Millimans approach is a man-pleasing, book-selling, rather than a Godhonouring and truth-promoting approach.
There are basically two criteria in evaluating a version: (1) On
which original language texts are the translations based, and (2) by what
method of translation is the version produced?
First, on which original language texts should a translation be
based? As far as Milliman is concerned, the Masoretic Text is, by far,
the text of choice in translating the OT (135). I agree with Milliman,
although I would specify that it is the Ben Chayyim edition on which the
KJV is based. As far as the New Testament text is concerned, Milliman is
open to both the Majority Text/Textus Receptus and the Westcott-Hort
Text. It is clear that Milliman is biased against the theological approach
in favour of the lower critical approach to the text. In his opinion, the
textual-critical method of Westcott and Hort and their cohorts remain the
most reasonable way to reconstruct, with confidence, the original text of
the Bible the text generally followed is The Greek New Testament
476
published by the United Bible Societies (136). He admits that virtually

all modern translations have been based on this text (136).
It is indeed strange that Milliman a professing fundamentalist would
prefer a Greek text that has been edited by Roman Catholics and
modernists. He seems quite sure that these men who deny the gospel and
the fundamentals of the Christian faith are able to decide for him which
readings of the text are inspired and which are not. Does he not know that
spiritual things are spiritually discerned (1 Cor 2:13-14)? Are men who
are void of the Spirit capable of making the correct decisions with regard
to the text? Who can ascend unto Gods holy hill except those with clean
hands and pure hearts (Ps 24:3-4)? We would rather trust the textual
decisions of the reformers and the KJV men. These were the men whom
we can expect the Holy Spirit to guide as they attempted to reconstruct
the original text (John 14:26, 1 John 2:27). The Textus Receptus on
which the KJV is based is the Reformation Text which has stood the test
of time for nearly 400 years, and its ancestry can be traced right back to
the first century when the inspired New Testament was written. This is
the providentially preserved text that is worthy of our trust and use. The
logic of faith would lead us to this conclusion. It is absurd to think that
God would allow His Church to use a corrupted text down through the
centuries only to raise up two Anglican liberalsWestcott and Hortin
1881 to produce their pure text. The doctrine of the providential
preservation of Scripture, that God has kept His words pure throughout
the ages, would have us know that the purity of the text existed from the
very beginning when God put His inspired words on paper, and not only
after 1881. Milliman thanks Westcott and Hort. To these two and to
Milliman, I say, No thanks!
Second, there are two Bible translation methods, the traditional
formal equivalence (word for word) method and the modern dynamic
equivalence (thought for thought, or thought for word) method. Milliman
began rather well by saying that in Bible translation strong arguments
can be made that the translator should be most interested in faithfulness
to the specific forms of the original text (138). But the next moment, he
compromises. Translations, he says, that are produced based on any one
of these theories may all be able to lay claim to the label accurate
(138). Milliman compromises by calling for balance (147). Does not
Milliman know that balance is a favourite term of neo-evangelicalism?
He then went on to put in a good word for feminist translations: No
477
reason exists to insist on male-oriented language when a gender-neutral

translation would best reflect the meaning of the original text (147).
Such a balanced approach that takes lightly specific forms and genders
of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures opens a can of worms. Milliman
says, Meaning takes precedence over form (140). But who
determines meaning? How do we know it is meaning and not
opinion? Where do we draw the line? If we employ the dynamic
approach to translation, we become slaves to subjectivity. The dynamic
equivalence method may be well and good for human literature, but not
so when it comes to translating the Bible, for in Bible translation we are
not dealing with human literature but divine Scripture. If we, as
fundamentalists, believe in verbal plenary inspiration, that every word of
God in the Holy Scriptures is divinely inspired and God-breathed, then
the only acceptable and God-honouring method of translation must be a
verbal plenary translation (VPT) method which is the formal equivalence
(word for word) method.
Milliman ought to return to Bibliology 101. He ought to be
reminded that God inspired words not concepts. I wonder if
Milliman is sympathetic to the liberal view of conceptual inspiration vis-vis verbal inspiration. I trust not. But one thing is certain, his view on
biblical translation does not square with his view on biblical inspiration.
Which English Bible version does Milliman recommend? Milliman
would recommend any version, as long as it suits the user. He goes by
what he has said earlier, it depends. It depends on ones tastes and
preferences. Insofar as English Bibles are concerned, the Christian is
privileged to have a Baskin Robbins variety of flavours. It does not
matter whether a version is based on the corrupt Westcott-Hort Text or
not, or whether a translation is accurately and faithfully translated or not,
the reader is simply encouraged to pick one that suits his taste. Despite
knowing the weaknesses and unfaithfulness of these modern versions,
Milliman has no qualms recommending all these corrupt versions: ASV,
NASB, RSV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NCV, LB, NLT, NIV, NIrV etc.
Milliman considers the NIV to be the best all-round version and highly
recommends it (150). The NIV being the most popular of all modern
English Bibles today is indeed the most dangerous. Read my critique of
the NIV in Chapter IX of my bookKept Pure in All Agespublished by
the FEBC Press, 2001 (obtainable from the FEBC Bookroom, 9A
Gilstead Road, Singapore 309063).
478
It is truly nave of Milliman to think that all these versions

accurately present the Word of God and, at the same time, fulfill the
need for a variety of uses (150). If all these Bibles were the same,
faithfully and accurately translated based on the inspired and preserved
text, then there would be no problems, but such is simply not the case.
There are truly serious problems in all the above versions, and they could
rightly be deemed perversions of the Bible. I stress again that all the
above versions are a hodgepodge of modernist, feminist, ecumenist, and
evolutionist perversions of the Bible. Every Christian ought to be warned
against them.
Many English versions have been published, but none has yet
overthrown the KJV. The KJV remains the best, most faithful, reliable,
accurate, trustworthy, beautiful English Bible we have today. Can the
venerable KJV ever be replaced? Should we ever think of revising it?
Here is Dean Burgons reply: Whatever may be urged in favour of
Biblical Revision, it is at least undeniable that the undertaking involves a
tremendous risk. Our Authorized Version is the one religious link which
at present binds together millions of English-speaking men scattered
over the earths surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so
sacred a bond should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain
words more accurately,here and there translating a tense with greater
precision,getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently
assumed that no Revision of our Authorized Version, however
judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which
is actually enjoyed by the work of the Translators of 1611,the noblest
literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language. We shall in fact never have
another Authorized Version (Revision Revised, 113).
An Appeal to Scripture by Kevin T Bauder

Bauder wrongly entitled his chapter, An Appeal to Scripture. It
should be retitled, A Denial of Scripture. Besides all his verbiage, the 7
passages of Scripture Bauder citedRev 10:1-4, John 21:25, Matt 13:113, Mark 4:1-13, 2 Kgs 22:8, 2 Chron 34:15, and Tit 3:10have all been
twisted out of context to support his strawman and red herring arguments.
In many of his paragraphs, he paints his highly imaginative version of the
Pro-KJV position, making it look ridiculous, and then conveniently
critiques his very own absurd caricature of his opponents. This is not only
unfair, it is also dishonest. In his offensive posturing against Traditional
Text preservationists, he clearly shows himself to be a desperate man
479
who can only find fault with his opponents by creating faults for them.
Only ignoramuses, obscurantists and recalcitrants will buy into Bauders
unjust criticisms of the KJV and the Textus Receptus.
Bauder began by saying, Orthodox Christians affirm that God has
preserved His Word. They acknowledge that God has accomplished this
preservation through providential means. They recognize in the
traditional Greek and Hebrew texts a substantial preservation of the
words of the original documents (155). Bauders first two sentences are
good and true, but he hedges on the third when he said that the Scriptures
are only substantially preserved. What does he mean by substantial
preservation? Obviously, based on what has already been propounded by
his colleagues, it means that Gods preservation of His Word was
imperfect, some inspired words have unfortunately been lost, but no
worries, the inspired words that have been lost are the insignificant and
redundant ones that do not affect our salvation. By substantial
preservation Bauder means 99% preservation. We have only 99% of
Gods Word today, not 100%.
Such a 99% view of preservation is certainly not held at all by most
Bible-believing and Bible-defending Christians as Bauder would have us
believe. Allow me to cite the International Council of Christian Churches
(ICCC) 16th World Congress in Jerusalem, 2000, Statement #2, On the
Word of God Forever Inerrant and Infallible: The first historic doctrine
of the Christian Church presented in the doctrinal statement of this
Council of churches is its belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the
entire Bible Gods Word has been given to us directly from heaven by
the Holy Spirit and Jesus, while He was here, said that the Father had
sent Him and had given Him the words which He had delivered to man.
Jesus was explicit when He said, Heaven and earth shall pass away; but
my words shall not pass away. The penalty pronounced on adding to or
taking from the Scriptures was severe judgement from God Himself. It
is this Bible that has brought into existence the ICCC. It is through this
Bible that the Holy Spirit has given the faith to the leaders who have
established this Council and has helped them maintain a sure and clear
witness to the Bibles full truthfulness. It is this Bible and its record of
past prophecies that have been seen to be fulfilled in the smallest level,
and every Word of God is true. Nothing that the archaeologists have
discovered and will discover will contradict this Book. This Holy
Book is the work of our righteous God in making possible the only
480
salvation that exists and in bringing men and women through the
preaching of the Word in all its foolishness into Gods everlasting
kingdom. The ICCC reaffirms all the statements carefully and prayerfully
worked out , all of which are based squarely on this holy and perfect
record which came from heaven, of which God is the Author and that
indeed is why it is called the Word of God.
Note that the ICCC statement affirms the preservation of every
word to the smallest detail, and that the Bible is perfect and thus
fully truthful. It is clear that the ICCC, which represents Bible-loving
and Bible-defending Christians from all over the world, believes in entire
(100%) preservation. It is ludicrous for Bauder to think that our God
could give His Church an infallible and inerrant Scripture only in biblical
times, but not today. If God is powerful enough to inspire His Word to the
jot and tittle without error, surely He is powerful enough to preserve all
of His inspired words so that today His people can say they have the very
same inspired words the Apostles and Prophets had! Surely, we have a
100% Scripture today!
Bauder made some reckless comments on the original language
manuscripts when he said, If the preservation of the Word of God
depends upon the exact preservation of the words of the original
documents, then the situation is dire. No two manuscripts contain exactly
the same words. Here again, Bauder speculates and pontificates. He
makes a statement and assumes it is truth and fact, and expects his
readers to take his word for it. He does not say he has conducted any kind
of thorough primary research. Neither did he cite any worthy and reliable
authority to back his claims. There are over 5000 extant New Testament
manuscripts, how does Bauder know for sure that no two manuscripts
contain exactly the same words? Has he personally checked, studied and
compared every one of the 5000 plus manuscripts? Or is he simply
parroting what the liberals and neo-evangelicals have been mouthing all
along, casting doubt on Gods inspired Word?
It is a fact that the majority of the New Testament Greek
manuscripts bear remarkable uniformity and harmony. The scribal errors
have been comparatively few. The actual corruption of manuscripts was
kept to a minimum. This however was certainly not true of the minority
manuscripts of Westcott and Hort. Using the Textus Receptus as the
standard, Burgon compared the Westcott and Hort uncials to see how
much these manuscripts agree with the Traditional Text as represented by
481
mean preservation at all. How convenient! Bauder writes off any verse in
the Bible that teaches preservation by means of his fallacious
hermeneutical method. Bauder should employ the same hermeneutical
method on all the verses supporting inspiration like 2 Tim 3:16 and 2 Pet
1:21, and I am quite sure he would find such an exercise very
enlightening. Bauder should really try it. He might just discover to his
horror that he has no biblical basis whatsoever for his faith in a divinely
inspired Scripture, that the doctrine of inspiration is likewise a
theological illusion!
Bauder faults KJV/TR-Only advocates with another illusion, that
of the appeal to reason. He argues that KJV/TR-Only advocates are
wrong to reason that verbal inspiration must require verbal preservation
(158). Then he cites some instances in Scripture to prove that God did not
see fit to preserve all of His words. Bauder wrote, With regard to Gods
spoken words, He has certainly not seen fit to preserve all of His words in
a publicly accessible form In Johns presence, God spoke through
seven thunders, but then He explicitly forbade John to preserve those
words in written form (Rev. 10:1-4). When the Scriptures tell us that not
all of Jesus acts were recorded (John 21:25), it logically follows that
not all of His words were recorded either (158-9). Now, Bauder has got
it all wrong. When KJV/TR-Only advocates talk about the preservation
of Gods words, we always mean His written words as recorded in the
canonical Scriptures. We understand very well that God has not chosen or
seen it fit to put on paper all of His revelation. We understand very well
that it is not the spoken words but the written or inscripturated words that
God has preserved (Matt 5:18).
If Bauder needs biblical instances of Gods actual preservation of
His written words, there are at least two examples in the Scriptures. In
Exod 32:19, we find Moses in righteous indignation smashing to pieces
the Ten Commandments that were written by the finger of God. Was that
the end of the Ten Commandments? God forbid! Deut 10:4 sees God
rewriting the same Ten Commandments on two tables of stone. The Lord
also commanded Moses to keep the second set of Ten Commandments
safe in the ark for a perpetual testimony (Deut 10:5). Does this not tell us
of Gods mindful preservation of His written words? In Jer 36:32, the
prophet Jeremiah told his secretary Baruch to write again all the divine
words of judgement found in the original scroll that King Jehoiakim had
cut up and cast into the fire. Not only were the same words written again,
483
God commanded that more words of condemnation be added for the

punishment of Jehoiakim who had treated Gods words with such
contempt. Does Bauder still think that God cannot preserve His words
perfectly? May he think again, lest he fall into the error of Jehoiakim.
Bauder then says that our appeal to evidence is an illusion. He
charges KJV/TR-Only proponents of revising history arguing that there
are no manuscripts that support the Textus Receptus before the 4th century
(160). I do not wish to go over already thoroughly ploughed grounds, but
just to say that the antiquity of Textus Receptus readings is ably proved
and demonstrated not only by Burgon, but also Sturz and Van Bruggen.
Bauder then accuses KJV/TR-Only advocates of irresponsible
speculations for talking about early corruptions of the Scriptures (160).
But does Bauder read the Scriptures? Does he not know that Satan hates
Gods Word? Right from the beginning, in the Garden, Satan had already
undermined Gods Word by tempting Eve with Yea, hath God said?
Right in the days of the Apostles when the New Testament was being
written, Satan had already attempted to introduce into the Church
another Gospel (Gal 1:8). Spurious Gospels and Epistles had been
written to confuse and detract from the inspired Canon. How can Bauder
be so nave to think that there are no evidences of Satanic attempts to
corrupt the Scriptures? Burgon unlike Bauder was astute to observe,
And the Written Word in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was
shamefully handled by mankind. Not only was it confused through
human infirmity and misapprehension, but it became also the object of
restless malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides,
Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus,
Apollonides, and other heretics, adapted the Gospels to their own ideas.
Want of familiarity with the sacred words in the first ages,
carelessness of scribes, incompetent teaching, and ignorance of Greek in
the West, led to further corruption of the Sacred Text. Then out of the fact
that there existed a vast number of corrupt copies arose at once the need
of Recension, which was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a
fatal necessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first principles
of the Science were not understood; for to correct was too often in those
days another word for to corrupt. And this is the first thing to be briefly
explained and enforced: but more than a counterbalance was provided
under the overruling Providence of God (The Traditional Text, 10-11).
484
Bauder accuses KJV/TR-Only advocates of a fourth illusion in that

they turn the debate into an ad hominem expose of personalities
associated with the Alexandrian and Western manuscripts (160). What is
wrong with ad hominem arguments rightly and justifiably used? Consider
the infallible example of our Lord Jesus Christ. How did Jesus deal with
heresy and the heretics of His day? When we study the life of Christ, we
find our Lord sparing no effort and mincing no words in denouncing the
heretics of His time, namely, Israels pastors and doctors of theology
the Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees. Matthew 23 is full of argumentum
ad hominem. Did not the Lord curse Israels teachers with woes, and call
them hypocrites, blind guides, fools, whited sepulchres, serpents and
vipers? They were the pastors and teachers of Israel who instead of
guiding Gods people into the straight and narrow way of life, led them
into the broad way of death. Instead of shepherding Gods people to
green pastures and still waters, they led them to poisoned fields of thistles
and thorns. Jesus was very angry with these false pastors and teachers,
and said they deserve the greater damnation (cf. Jas 3:1).
If we are to be loyal to Christ and His Word, we must cultivate the
Davidic spiritwe must be men after Gods own heart. The Davidic
spirit is the spirit of holy hatred: Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate
thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate
them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies (Ps 139:21-22).
Who are the enemies of Gods inspired and preserved words? The
leading two must be the progenitors of the corrupt critical text, viz. B F
Westcott and F J A Hort. I have no qualms calling Westcott and Hort
modernists. They called the Textus Receptus vile and villainous.
They attacked the verbal plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures in 2
Tim 3:16 in their perverse ERV. They were rightly taken to task by
Robert Dabney who called their rendering of 2 Tim 3:16 the very
doctrine of the Socinian and Rationalist. We do well to distance
ourselves from Westcott and Hort. But not Bauder, he considers these
Anglican liberals his friends, speaking highly of their corrupt Greek text
(177).
The fifth illusion Bauder accuses the KJV/TR-Only movement of is
its appeal to supernaturalism. He argues against the miraculous
preservation of Scriptures. Here is another strawman that Bauder has
conveniently erectedhe falsely charges KJV/TR-Only advocates for
believing that no copying mistakes were ever made in the transmission
485
process (162). KJV/TR-Only advocates do not deny that copying

mistakes were made during the transcription process, but that does not
negate the fact that God has superintended the transcription of His
inspired words to ensure that none of His inspired words would be lost. If
10 scribes were copying the Scriptures, one or two might possibly make a
mistake in copying a particular verse, but the rest would have copied it
correctly, and the mistake made is easily identified and rectified by the
rest. The special providential hand of God has ensured this. Gods
providential work is always supernatural. God knows all things and is allpowerful. Man makes mistakes, but not God. He who has inspired every
jot and tittle of His Word has surely preserved every jot and tittle of His
Word (Matt 5:18).
Dr Hills wrote, If the doctrine of divine inspiration of the Old and
New Testament Scriptures is a true doctrine, the doctrine of the
providential preservation of these Scriptures must also be a true doctrine.
It must be that down through the centuries God has exercised a special,
providential control over the copying of the Scriptures and the
preservation and use of the original text have been available to Gods
people in every age. ... If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His
special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the
first place? And if the Scriptures are not infallibly inspired, how do we
know that the Gospel message is true? And if the Gospel message is not
true, how do we know that Jesus is the Son of God? It is a dangerous
error therefore to ignore the special, providential preservation of the holy
Scriptures and to seek to defend the New Testament text in the same way
in which we would defend the texts of other ancient books. For the logic
of this unbelieving attitude is likely to lay hold upon us and cast us down
into the bottomless pit of uncertainty. ... You must really believe this
doctrine [of the special, providential preservation of Scriptures] and
allow it to guide your thinking. You must begin with Christ and the
Gospel and proceed according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to
the Traditional text, the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version.
Divine providence has to be supernaturalGod is a Perfectionist,
and He has supernaturally kept His Word pure through the ages so that
none of His inspired words is lost. When God works, whether
miraculously (i.e. direct intervention) or providentially (i.e. indirect
intervention), it is always supernatural and special. We believe in an
Almighty God who is able to preserve perfectly His infallible and
inerrant Word (Heb 11:3).
486
In his final section, Bauder identifies the central issue: The core
issue in the King James-Only controversy is whether one must have the
very words of God (all of the words, and only the words of the
autographa) to have the Word of God (164). To me this seems to be an
awfully silly question. It is gratuitous that in order to have the all
infallible, inerrant, sufficient and authoritative Word of God today, we
must have the very words and all of the words, and only the words of
the autographa. Insofar as historic and reformed fundamentalism is
concerned, this has always been the positionthat God has kept pure in
all ages His Holy Scriptures, and so in every age, she has the very Word
of God in the original languages.
Hindus and Muslims all believe that their Scriptures, the Bhagavad
Gita and the Koran respectively, are perfect. Yet Christians who claim to
believe in the one living and true God, the Creator of heaven and earth,
and Christ the only Mediator and Saviour of the world, are not so quick
to believe they have an existing infallible and inerrant Scripture. What a
shame! If we adopt Bauders position, then Christianity is no longer true,
and Christians shall become the laughing stock of the religious world.
Indeed, if the Christian Bible is not perfect, infallible and inerrant, then
is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found
false witnesses of God; If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we
are of all men most miserable (1 Cor 15:14-15, 19). If what Bauder and
his colleagues teach is true, then Christianity could rightly, in Bauders
own words, be written off and ridiculed as a curiosity, preached by
eccentric but harmless old uncles (165). Let me conclude by saying that
this is Bauders Christianity, not mine.
What can we say about One Bible Only? I can only say it is a very
misleading book; full of misinformation. It is filled with
misrepresentations of the KJV/TR-Only position and misinterpretations
of the Holy Scriptures. Yea, Hath God Said? would have been a more
accurate and appropriate title for this untrustworthy and unedifying book.
Stay clear!
487
48
BOB JONES UNIVERSITY,
NEO-FUNDAMENTALISM, AND
BIBLICAL PRESERVATION
A Critique of Gods Word in Our Hands:
The Bible Preserved for Us
Jeffrey Khoo
Whither Biblical Fundamentalism?
Without a present, existing, tangible, and identifiable, infallible and
inerrant Scriptures in the original languages, Biblical Fundamentalism is
as good as dead. If there is no such a truth as an infallible and inerrant
Scripture that is pure and perfect in every way today, then is our
preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false
witnesses of God; ye are yet in your sins. If in this life only we
have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable (1 Cor 15:14, 15,
17, 19).
But Bible-believing and Bible-defending Christians can praise God
that Biblical Fundamentalism is not dead. This is because God has indeed
given His people such a perfect Bible not only in the past but also today!
He has promised the perfect preservation of His Word in the Old
Testament (Ps 12:6-7) as well as in the New Testament (Matt 5:18,
24:35). Biblical Fundamentalists have such a perfect Bible in the original
languages which is the sure and certain foundation of their faith and
practice. This perfect Bible is none other than the 100% inspired, 100%
preserved, 100% sufficient, and 100% authoritative Hebrew Old
Testament and Greek New Testament underlying the Reformation Bibles
which is best represented today by the Authorised or King James Bible.
The biblical doctrine of the special providential preservation of the
Scriptures assures us of this. There is a perennial need to contend
earnestly for the once-for-all-settled faith that is found in the forever
infallible and inerrant Word of God (Ps 119:89, Jude 3).
488
BJU, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical Preservation
The biblical doctrine of the 100% preservation of Scripture is the

truth, for we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor
13:8).1 Nevertheless, Satan, having lost his battle against the Verbal
Plenary Inspiration (VPI) of Scripture in the last century, in this new
century, seeks to attack the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of
Scripture in every way he can, even making use of those within the
fundamentalist camp.
Neo-Fundamentalism and the Imperfect Preservation

of Scripture
The latest book to cast doubt on Gods verbally and plenarily
preserved Word in the God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words
underlying the Authorised Version is this misnamed book called Gods
Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us edited by James B
Williams and Randolph Shaylor with various contributors who are
associated with Bob Jones University (BJU).2 Bob Jones III on the back
cover wrote, Like a clean-edged sword, Gods Word in Our Hands cuts
through the current confused and schismatic clatter on the subject of
biblical preservation. These conservative and God-fearing authors do the
Church great service by presenting us with soul-thrilling evidence of the
reliability and durability of the eternal Word.
The authors of this book might well be conservative and Godfearing, but I fear we might be looking at a case of having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof (2 Tim 3:5). In this critique, I
will show that Bob Jones IIIs glowing endorsement of this book is
entirely misleading: (1) The book is not a clean-edged sword as claimed
because it misinterprets and misapplies the double-edged Sword which is
Gods Word itself. (2) It creates more confusion and schism on the
subject of biblical preservation because it misrepresents the Pro-KJV and
Preserved Text position, and promotes the modernistic and ecumenical
modern versions that are based on the corrupt Critical Text. (3) The data
are not at all soul-thrilling because they are based on mans subjective
and fallible interpretation of so-called evidence. (4) It does not edify
the faith of believers in God and His Word because of its deistic view that
not every jot and tittle of Scripture is preserved, that some words are
already lost and remain lost; and also its agnostic thinking that though
Gods inspired Word is preserved somewhere out there, no one can be
sure of precisely where.
489
As Biblical fundamentalists, we reject the postmodernistic mindset

of uncertainty, and neo-deistic view of the imperfect preservation of
Scripture. Based on Gods explicit promise of Biblical preservation (Ps
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35), and the certainty of faith (Heb 11:6) that
believes in Gods special providential preservation of His very own
words to the jot and tittle, we can tell for sure where the inspired words
are exactly preserved. God does not play hide and seek with His people
(Prov 22:20-21). He desires His people to know the precise location of
His inspired and preserved words. Faith in God and His Word is the key
to knowing where His very words are and how He has supernaturally
worked in history. But it is unfortunate that neo-fundamentalists have
chosen rather to follow the pride of human intellectualism that is based
on false rules of textual criticism leading to a dead end of unbelief. As
much as they hope to have, they really do not have an infallible and
inerrant Bible in their hands as claimed. Even with all their clever human
reasoning and textual critical prowess, they are still unable to produce a
Bible that they can assuredly say, This is the very Word of God,
infallible and inerrant! Herein we see the weakness of man, but the
greatness of God!
Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Gods Word

In BJUs previous bookFrom the Mind of God to the Mind of
Man3its writers undermine the doctrine of the perfect preservation of
Scripture,4 sharing the same view as their partners-in-crime, namely, the
writers of One Bible Only?5 from Central Baptist Theological Seminary
which is again proudly listed in this sequel. In the latter book, Edward
Glenny said, (1) the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the
ancient church, (2) we might have lost a few words through
negligence, and (3) not only is Scripture without a verse to explain how
God will preserve His Word, but no statement in Scripture teaches that
God did preserve perfectly the original text of Scripture.6 What a faithshattering declamation of Gods forever infallible and inerrant Word! Can
these words be from the pen of a fundamentalist? These men cannot be
acknowledged as true fundamentalists. They give Biblical
Fundamentalism a bad name. Until they recant and repent of their error,
they deserve to be known as neo-fundamentalists or neo-deists.
Now in this bookGods Word in Our Handsthe writers admit
that the Scriptures do teach the doctrine of Biblical preservation. One
490
might think they are at last on the right track, but no, they undermine the
doctrine the very next moment when they say that though the doctrine is
taught in the Scriptures, it is not clearly taught.
Their bottom line on Matthew 5:18 is particularly disturbing. One
feels like he has come face to face with the old serpent. In the same way
the serpent tempted Eve in the Garden (Gen 3:1-4), so do the neofundamentalists of this book with their twisted interpretation and
application of Matthew 5:18. Satans deadly strategy of seduction usually
begins with a friendly Yes! Then he creates doubt, Did God really say
this? Finally, he goes for the kill with a deadly No!
Such a lethal hissing of the snake is found on page 106. First the
Yes! Is our Lord here guaranteeing the preservation of all the written
words of Scripture? The reply is an emphatic yes. Next, the doubt,
Although preservation is not His main point, it is nevertheless the
point What He does not do, however, is give even so much as a hint as
to how or where preservation will take place. Finally, the No! The
conclusion one must reach is that this passage does not teach that those
words are preserved in one particular manuscript or lineage of
manuscripts alone. Neither does this passage guarantee that all the words
will be always available at all times.
Let us analyse the above fallacious interpretation and application of
Matthew 5:18. The editorial committee that penned those words began by
agreeing emphatically that all the written words of Scripture are
preserved. But know that what was said is not the same as what was
meant. This is revealed at the end when they denied that all the words
will be always available at all times. In other words, some of Gods
words can be and have been lost. Now, if some of Gods words can be
and have been lost, how can the promise of Matthew 5:18 be true, and
how can it be so emphatically stated at the outset that God guarantees the
preservation of all His written words? Furthermore, the statement that the
preservation of Scripture is not the main point and yet the point is
contradictory and confusing, if not deceptive. This Yes, Yes-No, No
interpretation and application of Matthew 5:18 has the Satanic stamp all
over it. What is the real bottom line? It is this: BJU and the neofundamentalists do not believe that God will and is able to preserve
perfectly all of His inspired words to the last iota, that all of His inspired
words will always remain available and accessible to His people all the
time until the end of time.
491
The only Christlike response to such an unfaithful treatment of

Jesus words must come from the very words of the Lord Himself who
told Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for
thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men
(Matt 16:23).
May these fundamentalist brethren return to the godly path of
Christ-honouring and faith-centred exposition and application of Gods
forever infallible and inerrant Word. Yea, let God be true, but every man
a liar (Rom 3:4).
Confusion and Schism in Fundamentalism

BJU and the neo-fundamentalists are upset with the confusion and
schism that surround the present controversy over the preservation of
Scripture and the KJV. They say it unnecessarily detracts from the main
purpose for the churchs existence. 7 How does a clear and bold
declaration that the church has a 100% inspired and 100% preserved
Scripture detract from the main purpose of the churchs existence? On the
contrary, it enhances and ensures the witness and testimony of the church,
and gives believers the solid and immoveable foundation they need to
evangelise the lost, and edify the saints. It is those who cannot confess
that there is a perfect Bible today, who say that the Bible today is not
infallible and inerrant, who say that the Bible today contains mistakes
that are destabilising and destroying the church. What is the main
purpose of the churchs existence? Is it not to glorify God? How does the
neo-fundamentalist and neo-deistic position that God has not perfectly
preserved His Word and that there is no perfectly preserved Scripture
today glorify God? Those who say they do not have Gods perfect Word
today, or say they cannot tell where the perfect Word is are the ones
causing the confusion, not those with a clear and definite position.
The Far Eastern Bible College has a declared position that affirms in
no uncertain terms the present perfection of Scripture: We believe in the
divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary
Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in the original languages,
their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of
God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet
1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35). As regards the Hebrew OT, Greek
NT, and the KJV, We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek
New Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the
492
very Word of God, infallible and inerrant. We uphold the Authorised

(King James) Version to be the Word of Godthe best, most faithful,
most accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible in the English
language, and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the
public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.8 How does
such a position detract from the main mission of the church? We are
simply reaffirming good old Reformed and Reformation doctrine and
practice over against the modernistic and postmodernistic views and
methods as found in neo-evangelical churches, and now in neofundamental churches.
No matter what clarification is made by Biblical fundamentalists,
neo-fundamentalists are bent on confusing the issue by repeatedly making
false and dishonest claims like these: KJV fundamentalists advocate the
inerrancy of a particular translation; Problems arise when we make any
translation the exclusive revelation from God; It is troubling that so
many attempt to prove God has promised us a perfect English
translation; They have overlooked the supreme significance of the
original languages and have staked their claim on the King James Version
of the Bible as the God-inspired Bible for this present age.9 This may be
the position of Peter Ruckman (who ironically received his PhD from
BJU), but certainly not the better known and sound defenders of the KJV
like E F Hills and D A Waite. The above accusations are both confusing
and damaging because the original language text is the issue, not the
KJV per se nor any foreign language translation as alleged.10
Why do those who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture
believe that the KJV is the English Bible for today? Is it because they feel
the KJV is as perfect and as inspired as the original language Scriptures?
Of course not! Such misrepresentations do not reflect well on these BJU
men and neo-fundamentalists. It does look like their position is so weak
that they must resort to such low blows to make themselves look good.
Let it be known once and for all that the KJV of 1611 is the logical
choice for faithful English Bible users because they do believe and can
see that God has indeed kept His promise to preserve His words perfectly
in the original languages throughout history and especially during the
great Protestant Reformation. The KJV is the best English Bible today
precisely because it remains the most accurate and faithful translation of
the divinely inspired Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that God has
supernaturally preserved throughout the ages. All foreign language Bibles
493
including the English must be judged by this perfect rule of Gods totally
inspired and fully preserved words in the original languages, and not vice
versa. Any foreign language Bible if accurately translated and based on
the perfectly preserved text can rightly be held up like the KJV as the
Word of God, yea, even the very Word of God.
It is neo-fundamentalisms tragic compromise with modernistic,
rationalistic, and ecumenical textual critics and their modern perversions
of the Bible that is causing the confusion and the schism within Biblical
Fundamentalism today. Biblical fundamentalists loyal to their Lord and
His Word have no choice but to separate from these neo-fundamentalists,
and expose them for their hypocrisy.
Mans Subjective and Fallible Opinions

Many names do not the truth make. No man is perfect save the Lord
Jesus Christ, and no book is perfect save the Holy Bible.
Biblical fundamentalists believe that the Holy Scriptures, infallible
and inerrant, are the final and supreme authority of Christian faith and
practice. It is unfortunate that BJU and company, despite their
conservative and God-fearing profession, do not practise what they
preach. In their vain attempt to bolster their untenable position on
Biblical preservation, instead of simply believing what Scripture
explicitly teaches about its own preservation, and applying that truth in
their ministry, they cite a list of fundamentalists who had likewise
thought and taught wrongly concerning the preservation of Scripture.
They quote James Brookes, B H Carroll, C I Scofield, James Gray, R A
Torrey, John Straton, William Erdman, A T Robertson, W B Riley,
Richard Clearwaters, Noel Smith, John R Rice, and speak as though they
are the only rightful representatives of fundamentalism, and there is
consensus among fundamentalists over the text and translation issue.11
Are we supposed to be impressed by big names? Why do they forget
many other fundamentalists like Ian Paisley, Carl McIntire, E F Hills,
David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, O Talmadge Spence, Jack Moorman, David
Cloud, Arlin Horton, Dell Johnson, Thomas Strouse, M H Reynolds Jr,
Dennis Costella, David Sorenson, Arthur E Steele, S H Tow, and Timothy
Tow, who have written and spoken strongly in favour of the continued
use of the KJV because of its faithfulness to the 100% inspired and 100%
preserved Hebrew and Greek Texts on which it is based as opposed to the
corrupted text and versions? I wonder where Bob Jones Sr and Bob Jones
494
Jr stood on the KJV issue. Did they not strongly uphold the KJV as the
fundamentalists Bible? Why were they not mentioned in this BJU book?
This silence is telling! I do not believe that the late Bob Jones Sr and Bob
Jones Jr would have allowed this shift from the KJV towards the modern
versions that we see happening in BJU today.12
BJUs departure from the KJV today is due to her unequal yoke with
Westcott and Hort. For decades, BJU has promoted the false theory and
text of Westcott and Hort in the classroom, though not at the pulpit. The
new generation of BJU graduates are now asking, If the Westcott and
Hort text is superior to the Textus Receptus, why then should we continue
to use the KJV? Since the modern English versions are based on the
superior Westcott and Hort text, it only makes sense that we replace the
KJV with the modern versions. Is it no wonder that James B Williams
and company are so upset with Biblical fundamentalists who continue to
promote the KJV and decry this falling away from the KJV that they see
in BJU? If BJU does not repent of this wayward trend that she has
embarked on, her legacy would be similar to the many Bible-loving and
God-fearing institutions that once were but are no more. I personally hate
to see this happen, but with this sequel it does look like the writing is
already on the wall. Why does history have to repeat itself?
It needs to be reiterated that the issue has to do with the original
language Scriptures, not the translations per se. We must not put the cart
before the horse which only confuses the issue and hinders any progress
towards knowing the truth. It must also be pointed out that many a
fundamentalist today are seriously in error to think that the infallible and
inerrant Scriptures lie only in the autographs (which no longer exist)13
and not in the apographs (which exist today).14 Another grave error is the
view that there is no such thing as an infallible and inerrant Bible today
because the apographs have not been perfectly preserved by God. It is
taught that since the disappearance of the perfect autographs, Gods
people only had imperfect apographs as their Scriptures, which are the
imperfect Scriptures we possess today with words added, subtracted,
changed, missing or even lost.15
As already said, Gods Word in Our Hands is a book that does not
live up to its name. The reason: a flawed Bibliology! Their constant
appeal to human authority instead of biblical authority keeps telling me,
Let man be true, but God a liar! (contra Rom 3:4).
495
Agnostic with Deistic View of Biblical Preservation

On a front page of Gods Word in Our Hands we find this statement
of faith: We believe that the Bible teaches that God has providentially
preserved His written Word. This preservation exists in the totality of the
ancient language manuscripts of that revelation. We are therefore certain
that we possess the very Word of God. 16 Is this not a wonderful
statement? Should we not give it a loud Amen? A superficial and
simplistic reading of this statement might lead one to think that BJU and
company now believe they have a 100% inspired and 100% preserved
Scripture they can hold in their hands and say, This is the very Word of
God! Upon further investigation, we discover that this is far from true.
In the confusing world of theology today, what counts is not what is said
but what is meant.
Now, let us analyse the above statement to see what is meant. They
say, We believe that the Bible teaches . But if one were to ask them
whether the Bible clearly and directly teaches the doctrine of
preservation, they would answer in the negative: The Bible does not give
explicit but only implicit teaching on preservation.17 An implicit
teaching? How can such a vital doctrine as the preservation of Scripture
be implicit? Is it Gods nature to keep His words uncertain and unclear
to us? If the teaching on the preservation of the saints is explicit (Matt
10:22, Mark 13:13, John 10:28, Rom 8:30-39, Phil 2:12-13), how can the
teaching on the preservation of the Scriptures be implicit? If we cannot
be sure of Gods perfect preservation of every single one of His inspired
words, how can we be sure of Gods perfect preservation of every single
one of His saints, that none would be lost? Surely, we cannot! By saying
that the Bible does not teach clearly the preservation of Scripture, these
neo-fundamentalists have not only undermined the perspicuity of
Scripture and the preservation of the saints, but even more so the
omnipotence of God.
They say, God has providentially preserved His written Word.
Although they say that God has providentially preserved His written
Word, they do not believe that He did it supernaturally. According to
them, the Bible does not support supernatural preservation.18 In their
mind, only the inspiration of Scripture was supernatural, not its
preservation; God was careful in inspiration, but somehow careless in
preservation. Does this make sense? Is it not contradictory to speak of
496
God in such a way? Why would God want to inspire His words
supernaturally without wanting to preserve them in the same way? They
oppose my citing of Psalm 12:6-7 to prove the VPP of Gods inspired
words, but fail to interact with the faithful exegesis of the divine intent in
the infallible and inerrant Hebrew text offered by Biblical
preservationists. 19 Instead they cite commentator after commentator,
commentary after commentary as though these commentators and
commentaries are infallible and inerrant.20
It has to be pointed out that when these neo-fundamentalists say that
God has providentially preserved His written Word, they mean His
general providence and not special providence. There is a significant
distinction between the two. General providence refers to Gods indirect
intervention in the maintenance and sustenance of all things through the
laws of nature (Ps 104:10-30). Special providence, on the other hand,
speaks of Gods direct intervention in the protection and preservation of
certain things through extraordinary acts of miracles (Ps 91:1-16). The
providential preservation of the Scriptures falls under the latter category.
The Westminster Confession of Faith speaks of Gods preservation of
Scripture in terms of His singular care and providence.21 In other
words, God Himself, in His very own inscrutable ways without the
limitations inherent in secondary causality, guarantees that every iota of
His written words would be kept pure in all ages. E F Hills wrote, If
we believe that the New Testament Scriptures are the infallibly inspired
Word of God, then it is logical for us to believe that God has preserved
this written Word by His special providence.22
The rejection of the special providential preservation of Scripture
has led neo-fundamentalists to conclude that preservation exists in the
totality of the ancient language manuscripts of that revelation. Ask them
precisely where in the sea of over 3,000 Hebrew manuscripts, and over
5,000 Greek manuscripts is the very Word of God that we possess
today, and they would shrug their shoulders and say, I dont know and I
cant tell. But they are sure of one thing, that some of the inspired words
of God could be lost at any given period of time. They say, Gods
promises for the preservation of His words do not apparently necessitate
the availability of that written Word at every moment in history. It is
therefore possible for a portion of His words to be unavailable [or lost] at
a point in time.23
497
Since the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words could be lost,
it is no wonder they think in terms of the ancient language manuscripts
of that revelation. Who are they trying to fool? Note the words ancient
language instead of original language, and revelation, instead of
words. This is not by accident. By revelation they mean only
doctrines are preserved, not words. And when they say ancient
language they mean to include the ancient translations like the
Septuagint (Greek version of the Hebrew OT).24 This surely contradicts
what Jesus said in Matthew 5:18. Just as heaven and earth have been
continually existing and never at any moment unavailable, so also the
divinely inspired words (not just that revelation) of the original Hebrew
and Greek Scriptures even to their jots and tittles, not the translated
words in any version ancient or modern.
Having such a faulty view of biblical preservation, it is no wonder
that neo-fundamentalists are ever ready to correct the Hebrew text on the
basis of a translation like the Septuagint25 even when there is absolutely
no evidence of a scribal error in the original text.26 For instance, in 1
Samuel 13:1, every single Hebrew manuscript reads a year (shanah)
which the KJV correctly translates as Saul reigned one year.27 But neofundamentalists insist that one year is a scribal error even though all
the preserved Hebrew apographs since the time of the inspired
autographs read precisely so, one year. The logic of faith would lead a
sincere Bible believer to stick to the inspired and preserved Hebrew text,
but not Harding who says, On account of my theological conviction
regarding the inerrancy of the autographa, I believe the original Hebrew
text also reads thirty, even though we do not currently possess a Hebrew
manuscript with that reading.28 This is amazing! Harding is prepared to
believe that thirty is the inspired reading even when there is
absolutely no such inspired reading to begin with! It is like saying, I
believe in the resurrection of Christ even when no such resurrection ever
took place. Is this not foolish faith?
If the Bible contains such scribal errors as they say when there is
absolutely none in the Hebrew Scriptures past and present, then these
must be errors committed not by the copyist or scribe, but by the writer of
the inspired words himself! Unwittingly, these neo-fundamentalists have
denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture, and might as well throw out
their doctrine of inerrant autographs. It goes without saying that the
problem with these neo-fundamentalists is in their rejection of the plain
498
words of Scripture that teach not only its 100% inspiration but also 100%
preservation. It is no wonder that based on their flawed belief of an
imperfect Scripture which they hold in their hands, they are prepared to
use a corrupt translation to correct the inspired and preserved Hebrew
text in places like 1 Samuel 13:1. In so doing, are they not like the
Ruckmanites whom they accuse as heretics?
Although these neo-fundamentalists do not believe they truly have a
perfect Bible today, they try to reassure themselves and their readers that
they actually do: We are therefore certain that we possess the very Word
of God. Taking into account that what they say is not what they mean,
this is but an empty and vain affirmation. It is a delusion. It must be
underscored that they do not believe in the 100% perpetual, permanent,
and perfect preservation of the divinely inspired Hebrew/Aramaic Old
Testament and Greek New Testament words of the Holy Scriptures. They
do not believe that soon after the invention of printing this written Word
was placed in print and became the Textus Receptus, being immediately
received by believers everywhere and made the basis of faithful
translations such as the King James Version. Why this unbelief? It is
because conservative scholars, by and large, have been so brain-washed
by naturalistic propaganda that they hesitate to follow this logic of faith.
Some of them go to the extreme of denying that the Bible teaches the
special, providential preservation of the Scriptures. According to them,
apparently, it is theoretically possible that the true New Testament text
has been lost.29
Hillss words continue to ring true and accurately describe the neofundamentalists of the BJU mould, there is a growing number of
conservative Bible teachers who go around saying that all New Testament
texts and versions are good enough and that controversy concerning them
is much ado about nothing, a tempest in a teapot. They justify this
position by maintaining that the object of Gods providential preservation
of the Scriptures was not to preserve the precise words of the original
Scriptures but merely the substance of their doctrine, their essential
teaching. According to these teachers, the substance of doctrine, the
essential teaching, is found in all the New Testament manuscripts, even
the worst, and in all translations, even the most inaccurate. Hence, they
conclude happily, theres nothing to worry about. Choose any version you
please. 30 This is precisely the tragedy we see in BJU and other
fundamentalist colleges and churches today.
499
Achilles Heel of Neo-Fundamentalism

The neo-fundamentalists say they are sure that the Bible is
preserved for us. However, their very own words incriminate them. The
Bible to them is only 99.9% preserved, not 100%. They believe that some
of the inspired, original language words have been lost and still nowhere
to be found.
These neo-fundamentalist writers want their readers to believe that
they do believe in Biblical preservation when they in fact do not. Their
past denial of Biblical preservation as a fundamental doctrine taught in
the Scriptures and their present affirmation of the same without recanting
and repenting of their error are deceptive and create confusion all the
more. It is important to realise that it was the Textus Receptus KJVists
and not the Critical Text modern versionists who first championed the
sorely neglected doctrine of the VPP of Scripture of true Fundamental
Protestantism as expressed in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession
(1645) and Baptist New Hampshire Confession (1833).
What kind of Bible do we have in our hands? According to BJU and
neo-fundamentalists, what we have in our hands is a once-upon-a-time
inspired, but not happily-ever-after preserved Bible. Since the Bible
today is not without spot and blemish, it may no longer be deemed
infallible and inerrant, or perfect in every way, not in any manuscript,
family of manuscripts, text or translation. If the foundations be
destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps 11:3).
This is the Achilles heel of neo-fundamentalism: (1) The Bible
though 100% inspired is not 100% preserved. Therefore, there is no such
thing as a 100% perfect Bible today, not in any text, not in any
translation. (2) The 19th-20th century Westcott-Hort and Critical Text is
superior to the 16th-17th century Traditional Text or Textus Receptus.
Therefore, the Reformers and the Reformation saints have all used the
wrong Bible. (3) The KJV is good, but the modern versions are better.
Therefore, replace the KJV with the modern versions.
The above neo-deism spells the death knell for BJU. We can see the
neo-evangelicals cheering the neo-fundamentalists on to the finish line. If
they do not stop their undermining of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures
underlying the KJV, they will sooner or later deny not only the VPP but
also the VPI of Scripture. What a fellowship, what a view so blind,
leaning on the ever-lethal arms of liberal scholarship!
500
Unless Biblical fundamentalists are fully committed to the twin

doctrines of the VPI and VPP of Scripture, and wholeheartedly defend
the traditional and preserved text on which the KJV is based, they will
gradually melt and blend into the neo-evangelical and liberal crowd. The
backsliding and downgrading is already taking place. The warning is
hereby sounded. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matt 11:15).
Notes
See Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised
Version and the Doctrine of Providential Preservation (Singapore: Far Eastern
Bible College Press, 2001); A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The Burning Bush 9
(2003):1-15; KJV Q&A (Singapore: Bible Witness Literature Ministry, 2003).
2
The Bible Preserved for Us (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald International,
2003). Besides Bob Jones University, other schools that contributed to this book
include Central Baptist Theological Seminary, Calvary Baptist Theological
Seminary, Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, Northland Baptist Bible College, Faith
Baptist Bible College, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Maranatha Baptist
Bible College, and Temple Baptist Seminary. All the above schools bear a proWestcott and Hort or Critical Text, and pro-modern versions disposition that
undermines the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Thankfully, there is
an antidote for the above poison, and ironically from the same publisher, which is
Ian R K Paisleys, My Plea for the Old Sword (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald
International, 1997).
3
(Greenville: Ambassador Emerald International, 1999). See my critique, Bob
Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind
of Man, The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-33.
4
Randolph Shaylor, who has become the managing editor of Gods Word in
Our Hands, on page 22 of the prequel, From the Mind of God to the Mind of
Man, said that the Bible nowhere teaches nor implies that the copies of Scripture
are inerrantly and infallibly inspired. On page 25 of the same book, he quoted
errant Warfield for support saying that only the autographs are inspired, not the
apographs.
5
Rapids: Kregel, 2001). See my critique, The Emergence of NeoFundamentalism: One Bible Only? or Yea Hath God Said?, The Burning Bush
10 (2004): 2-47.
6
Beacham and Bauder, One Bible Only?, 116, 121, 123.
7
Williams and Shaylor, Gods Word in Our Hands, xiv.
1
501

Hutcheson rightly observed, The orthodox Christians in the nineteenth
century used that greatly revered translation which had been handed down to
them. Since its appearance in 1611, the King James Version had gained
prominence as the primary English translation and had been blessed of God over
the previous two hundred and fifty years. Gods Word in Our Hands, 4. Pro-KJV
advocates are saying that we should continue in this good and faithful tradition,
and should reject the modern English versions today because they are
significantly different from the good old KJV. If the modern English translations
are also based on the preserved instead of the corrupted text, and are translated
literally rather than loosely, then there would be no problem, but this is simply
and truly not the case. See A Survey of English Bible Translations, in Kept
Pure in All Ages, 69-100.
9
Williams and Shaylor, Gods Word in Our Hands, xv, 27, 111, 195.
10
See David H Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and
Separation, 3rd ed (Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001).
11
Although it is regrettable that the VPP of Scripture was not discussed in
The Fundamentals (1910-1915) edited by Dixon, Meyer and Torrey, it is
heartening to note that L W Munhall did allude to it in his chapter on
Inspiration when he wrote, The attitude of Jesus toward the Old Testament
and his utterances confirm beyond question our contention. He had the very same
Old Testament we have today (The Fundamentals [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1990
reprint], 168, emphasis mine).
12
One proud BJU graduate that I know of had assured me personally that
the BJU alumni had pledged to protest in unison the day they see their alma mater
abandoning the KJV. If this is true, then I really hope it would come soon for the
sake of their school.
13
John Hutcheson wrote, The pioneers of the [fundamentalist] movement
argued for the inerrancy of the autographs alone (Williams and Shaylor, Gods
Word in Our Hands, 27).
14
See my paper, Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the
Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, The Burning Bush 11
(2005): 3-19.
15
Williams and Shaylor, Gods Word in Our Hands, 94, 106, 110, say that
Biblical preservation does not mean a perpetual activity of sustenance, that all
the words will be always available at all times, that an absolutely perfect copy
would be produced.
16
Ibid, iii.
17
Ibid, 83.
18
Ibid.
19
Khoo, The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism, 29-31; Suan-Yew
Quek, Did God Promise to Preserve His Words? Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7,
The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-99; Thomas Strouse, The Permanent
8
502

Preservation of Gods Words, Psalm 12:6,7, in Thou Shalt Keep Them, ed Kent
Brandenburg (El Sobrante: Pillar & Ground, 2003), 29-34.
20
Williams and Shaylor, Gods Word in Our Hands, 86.
21
Westminster Confession of Faith, I:VIII.
22
Edward F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines: Christian Research
Press, 1977), 36-7. Emphasis mine.
23
Williams and Shaylor, Gods Word in Our Hands, 124 (parenthesis mine).
For instance, on page 375, Downey says that a Hebrew word has been lost in
Deuteronomy 8:3 and recovered in the Greek translation.
24
Williams in his prequel (From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, 4, 7),
castigated those who defend the KJV as Gods preserved Word in the English
language, calling them unqualified, immature, and a cancerous sore. He
says the KJV ought not to be exalted, but in this sequel of his, he exalts the
ancient translations and puts them on par with the original language Scriptures!
What hypocrisy!
25
See Prabhudas Koshy, Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt
Septuagint?, The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 93-5.
26
According to Harding and Shaylor, the Septuagint can be used to correct
the Hebrew text even though we do not currently possess a Hebrew text with
that reading (Gods Word in Our Hands, 26, 414).
27
The year is calculated not from the time of Sauls birth but his
appointment as king. Matthew Poole commented, [Saul] had now reigned one
year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in which time these things were done,
which are recorded in chap. xi., xii., to wit, peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2
Sam. ii.10 (A Commentary on the Holy Bible, vol 1 [Mclean: MacDonald
Publishing Company, nd], 542).
28
Williams and Shaylor, Gods Word in Our Hands, 361, emphasis mine.
29
Hills, Believing Bible Study, 37.
30
Ibid.
503
49
MULTIVERSIONS ONLYISM
A Critique of King James Onlyism: A New Sect
Jeffrey Khoo
King James Onlyism1a new book by James D Price of Temple
Baptist Seminaryjoins the ranks of fundamentalist books like From the
Mind of God to the Mind of Man (1999), One Bible Only? (2001), and
Gods Word in Our Hands (2003), in attacking the Biblical doctrine of the
verbal and plenary preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures, and the
faithful, logical identification of the divinely preserved texts to be the
Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus on which the
King James Version (KJV) is based.2
Prices Multiversions Onlyism book was printed with the help of
Rev Yap Beng Shin, a Bible-Presbyterian (BP) minister, who earned his
MDiv from Temple Baptist Seminary under Prices tutelage. Rev Yap was
one of the 11 signatories of a statement against the VPP of the Holy
Scriptures.3 Besides Rev Yap, the other signatories were Rev Philip Heng,
Rev Ong Hock Khee, Rev Tan Eng Boo, Rev Charles Seet, Rev Colin
Wong, Rev Anthony Tan, Rev Tan Choon Seng, Rev Eric Kwan, Rev
Eddy Lim, and Rev Yap Kim Sin. I would assume that Prices book is not
only recommended by Rev Yap but also these other BP ministers who
stand with him. For those looking for reasons why the KJV ought to be
replaced with modern versions, Prices book is better than most.
Prices involvement in the VPP/TR/KJV debate in Singapore went
as far back as 2002 when he wrote a critique of my paper, A Plea for a
Perfect Bible.4 His critique was circulated among BP churches and
members, and grossly misrepresented my position on the VPP of
Scriptures by making it purely a translational (English and KJV) issue
when it was primarily a textual and doctrinal one (100% inspired and
100% preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words underlying the
faithful and accurate KJV on the basis of the twin doctrines of the VPI
and VPP of the Holy Scriptures, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35 etc). Prices
504
Multiversions Onlyism
critique heightened the confusion among BP members and churches

concerning VPP. I wrote a response to Prices review of my paper and
clarified what I meant by VPP.5 But Price does not seem to care about
accurate and truthful reporting for he continues to misrepresent and
caricature pro-KJV or KJV-superiority advocates as Ruckmanites and
Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA).6 He insinuates that Presbyterian and
Harvard scholar Edward F Hills, and David Otis Fuller, a founding leader
of the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC), and D A
Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society believe in the inspiration of
the English words of the KJV when they are actually talking about the
inspiration and preservation of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words on
which the KJV is based.7 Such slanders did not begin with Price, but with
Doug Kutilek who is quoted and praised by Price in his book.8 If Hills,
Fuller and Waite are Ruckmanites and SDAs for promoting the KJV as
the best and only faithful English Bible today, then the Trinitarian Bible
Society and the Bible League, which promote and defend the KJV and
consider not only the modern versions but also the NKJV to be
unreliable, should be implicated too. Price unjustly paints with a broad
brush, and by so doing creates confusion and scepticism among the
believers.
Anyone reading Prices anti-KJV book would likely lose confidence
in the KJV and be filled with doubts over the faithfulness and accuracy of
the KJV and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. If a Multiversions
Only advocate wishes to discourage a KJV user from using the KJV,
Prices book might just do the trick. Price spared no effort to show that
the KJV is full of mistakes. A young or undiscerning reader might be
stumbled and deceived, especially if he does not start with Scripture itself
and believe in Gods promise of special providence in preserving His
inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words on which the KJV is based,
and how the KJV is a faithful and accurate translation of those
providentially preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words.
According to Price, the KJV is only one version among many good
and even better versions. To him, the use of the KJV should be a matter
of preference and not principle. Price would deem all who affirm the KJV
as the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of the
Bible in the English language, and employ it alone as [their] primary
scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the
English Bible to be divisive or schismatic (some even say heretical!).9
505
Price ought to be reminded that Truth does divide (eg, John 10:19). For
instance, the Biblical doctrine that a man can only be saved by grace
alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, based on Scripture alone, is
surely schismatic and divisive. There are no two ways about it. Jesus
said, Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
send peace, but a sword (Matt 10:34). This sword is a sword of
division or separation. Does Price believe this? Does Price who hails
from a fundamentalist seminary not teach separation from modernism,
ecumenism, charismatism, and neo-evangelicalism? Why is he singing an
inclusive, pluralistic, and syncretistic tune by commending and
recommending the use of ecumenical, liberal, neo-evangelical, and
feminist versions of the Bible which will only compromise and confuse
the clear testimony of the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ? It must
be said that the KJV, being a Reformation Bible, is a separatist Bible. No
wonder it is so disliked, even hated, by non- or anti-separatists!
Now, we do not discount the fact that the modern, neo-evangelical
and ecumenical versions which are based on the corrupt texts and/or use
the dynamic equivalence method may contain enough gospel to convict
and convert the sinner (according to Gods election), but this does not
make them the Word of God. They may contain the Word of God like
tracts and commentaries do, but they can hardly be regarded as the very
Word of God for they stem from the corrupt text of theological liberals,
Westcott and Hort, who denied the historicity of the first three chapters of
Genesis, the total inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, and other fundamental
doctrines of the Christian Faith.
Price wants Christians to be uncertain or agnostic about the precise
location of Gods Word. He says, The Bible, like all other things in life,
has a measure of uncertainty associated with the identity, the exposition,
the interpretation, and the meaning of its text. Sound reason has shown
that this uncertainty provides no practical basis for doubting the
authenticity or authority of Scripture; instead, reason provides the
stepping stone for faith to move beyond uncertainty to full confidence in
Gods Word. 10 In other words, faith must depend on reason (the
stepping stone for faith) to give it confidence in Gods Word. Such a
thinking is unbiblical to say the least. Faith does not rest on human
reason at all, but on the Word of God alone (Sola Scriptura). Price has
placed corrupt and imperfect human reason above the incorruptible and
perfect Word of God. He is calling Christians to have faith in human
506
reason and human methods (eg, textual criticism) for their faith to be
sure, for he reasons that reason can give certainty to faith if only we have
confidence in it. Price who adopts human reason as a superior, or an
equal/additional authority to Scriptures proves the point that reason will
only lead to uncertainty, even unbelief. It goes without saying that Prices
epistemology is utterly wrongheaded.
Biblical fideism, on the other hand, gives rise to certainty not to be
repented of. The Apostle Peter tells us that our faith and knowledge must
be based on the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, Lord, to whom shall we
go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that
thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God (John 6:68-69). The
Apostle Paul likewise said, So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God (Rom 10:17). The Bible is not like other things in
life as Price would have us believe. The Bible is unique and
incomparable; there is nothing like it on earth and God forbid that we
should belittle it by making it subservient to human reason and methods,
and other things in life. The Bible is perspicuous and not as uncertain
as Price thinks. It is unbelief that makes the perspicuous Bible uncertain
to man, and may we not be unbelieving (John 8:43-47, Mark 16:14, Luke
24:25, 27).
Prices book rings an uncertain and ungodly sound. It is a mixed bag
of truth and error, facts and falsehoods. For example, he states truthfully
when he says that Hills, Fuller, Waite and Cloud insist on the Textus
Receptus (TR) underlying the KJV as the providentially preserved
authoritative text of Scripture, or what he calls the autographic text.11
But the next moment he states a falsehood by saying that those men
believe it is the English words that determine the words of the Hebrew
and Greek texts, not the Hebrew and Greek words that determine the
English.12 By so twisting the doctrine of VPP, he makes the above men
look like they believe in an inspired KJV, that the English is superior to
the Hebrew and the Greek, a position none of them advocate. Having
painted TR-only preservationists unfairly with such ugly colours, he then
puts his finishing touches to his distorted picture by making them look
like Ruckman.13 Such a below-the-belt tactic Price had well learned from
Kutilek.14
Price charges the KJV for giving an uncertain sound quoting 1
Corinthians 14:8-9, but does not realise that he is guilty of it himself
when he insists that there can be no certainty whatsoever as regards the
507
identification of the Perfect Word of God today. Where are Gods

infallible and inerrant words today? Well, they are somewhere out there,
but nobody can tell for sure precisely where.15 Without knowing where
Gods infallible and inerrant words are, how can we live by His every
word (Matt 4:4)?
Price is annoyed that preachers should have to waste time
explaining archaic words, phrases, and idioms.16 Singapores first chief
minister, David Marshall, who had for his English textbook the KJV,
would have scorned at Prices puerile criticisms of the KJV. There are
only about 200 archaic words in the KJV. These old words comprise only
0.1% of the KJV. The Oxford, Webster, Chambers dictionaries contain
entries for most of these archaic words. The Defined King James Bible
has the meanings of all the archaic words footnoted. They are not that
difficult to look up and learn. Moreover, to be educated with the Kings
English is hardly a waste of time.
Price spurns a One Bible or KJV Only position and advocates a
Modern Versions or Multiple Versions Only position. To Price, every
version has its positive and negative points, and so it is wrong to
suppose that only one translation is adequate for all purposes. 17 I
suppose he would spurn an NIV Only, or NASB Only, or NKJV Only
position as well, but he does not say so explicitly, but one thing is
obvious, he attacks the KJV more than any other version. According to
Prices doctrine of imperfect preservation, every Bible (including the
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures) contains mistakes. If there is such a thing
as a Perfect Bible, it is only the autographs which no longer exist, or it is
in the sea of multiple manuscripts and versions, every one of them
different and not the same.18 As far as Price is concerned, no one should
presume to know with absolute certainty where the 100% infallible and
inerrant Scripture today is. It may be somewhere out there, but precisely
where, no believer can tell; the only one who can even come close to
telling would be the textual critic, and even then, he cannot be dogmatic
or absolutely sure. There is just no perfect standard to judge anything
today. This logic of Price is the same kind of logic that turned once-upona-time fundamentalistBart Ehrmaninto an agnostic.19 Where is the
Bible? The Bible is nowhere, and so is God!
This Anti-KJV book of Price would be excellent for those seeking to
(1) oppose the Reformed Faith, the Reformation Text, and the VPP of
Scripture; (2) discourage the use of the faithful and accurate, time-tested
508
and time-honoured KJV; and (3) push for modern versions to replace the
KJV in the church. Any anti-VPP church which embraces the anti-KJV
views of Price, and sees the use of the KJV as only a matter of preference
and not principle, will ultimately give up the KJV to embrace the modern
versions which are based on corrupted texts. May true and faithful
Protestant, Reformation, and Fundamental believers and churches
beware!
Notes
James D Price, King James Onlyism: A New Sect (No place: No publisher,
2006), i-xii, 1-658.
2
For reviews/critiques, see my papers, Bob Jones University and the KJV:
A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, The Burning Bush 7
(2001): 1-34; The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or
Yea Hath God Said?, The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47; and A Critique of
Gods Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us, The Burning Bush 11
(2005): 20-34.
3
See A Statement on the Theory of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)
Life Bible-Presbyterian Weekly, September 25, 2005.
4
Jeffrey Khoo, A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The Burning Bush 9 (2003): 115.
5
can be read from the Dean Burgon Society website at http://
www.deanburgonsociety.org/Preservation/price.htm.
6
Price, King James Onlyism, 4, 209, 420.
7
Ibid, 17-18, 131-132.
8
Ibid, 7.
9
Ibid, 421
10
Ibid, 415.
11
Ibid, 16.
12
Ibid, 17.
13
Ibid, 17, 420.
14
Doug Kutilek, The Background and Origin of the Version Debate, in
One Bible Only? ed Roy E Beacham and Kevin T Bauder (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
2001), 27-56.
15
Price, King James Onlyism, 395-416.
16
Ibid , 421.
17
Ibid, 312.
18
Ibid, 128.
19
Bart D Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the
Bible and Why (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 11-12.
1
509
50
PRESERVATION OF THE BIBLE: PROVIDENTIAL
OR MIRACULOUS?
A Response to Jon Rehurek of The Masters Seminary
Paul Ferguson
Introduction
In Spring 2008, The Masters Seminary Journal published by The
Masters Seminary in California contained an article titled Preservation of
the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical View by Jon Rehurek.1
In this article, Rehurek rejects any Biblical doctrine of perfect preservation
of the Words of God and concludes that
an examination of exegetical evidence from commonly cited biblical texts
supports only a general promise of preserving the truth of Gods message to
mankind, not a particular version of the Bible. Many versesincluding some
related to immutability, infallibility, and preservationhave been incorrectly
interpreted and applied to preservation. The preservation of Gods revelation is
the lesson in many of the passages, but no explicit indication applies them
directly to written Scripture or to how and when a promise of general
preservation would be fulfilled. Since historical evidence demonstrates that
scribal errors exist in every extant manuscript, the conclusion to be drawn is
that the Bible has been providentially preserved by means of secondary
causation through the plethora of available manuscripts and not through
miraculous preservation of particular manuscripts and versions. God Himself
is faithful and true and His Word reflects His character; His decrees are
absolutely immutable and infallible. Although the Scriptures themselves
strongly assert that truths contained in it are firmly established and will endure
forever, the case for providential preservation must rest upon theological
grounds through the historical (i.e., canonicity) and manuscript evidence (i.e.,
textual criticism) rather than upon exegetical grounds.2
Jon Rehureks conclusions are wrong on both exegetical and historical

grounds. The truth is that every believer, using either Biblical or
philosophical presuppositions, is led to some conclusion as to the content of
510
Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous?
the original autographs. The Scriptures do not simply promise the

preservation of Gods truth or message but the Words. The Church has
historically held fast to these promises concerning the Words of God; not
only in respect of divine inspiration, but also in regard to perfect providential
preservation throughout the ages. However, since the Enlightenment,
Protestantism has granted science increasingly independent authority and has
surrendered the Bibles authority whenever any supposed conflict arose
between the two. The Enlightenment brought the age of the sovereignty of
reason which attempted to verify everything in Scripture by modern critical
methods of historical research. Just as in the case of creationism, until the
eighteenth century the Church held to the historic doctrine of the perfect
inspiration and preservation of the Words of God in all ages.
The zeitgeist of our contemporary apostate age now demands a new
and improved version of everything including the Scriptures. Our places of
worship have dropped the name Church, reduced worship to
entertainment, and promoted effeminate preacher gurus in Hawaiian shirts
to share the latest psychological fad. We have also now a marked
subservience to scientism as the dominant cultural standard. Did the Church
make such a gross error in over 500 years of interpretation? What has
primarily changed since the Reformation is the way man defines and uses
science. Modern scientific opinion has been elevated to the status of general
revelation giving it an absolute a priori veto over how we interpret Scripture.
So much for singing, Immortal, invisible, God only wise! Textual criticism
is built on the intolerant foundation of prejudice against the promises of
Scripture. Modern man always seeks out a way of removing His Creator
from the source of truth, as autonomous man aspires to fill the vacancy.
Jon Rehureks facile position is not the historic position of believers
and the Reformation and his objections are mere hand-waving. Critical Text
(CT) advocates, such as Rehurek, have no ultimate and certain standard for
determining objective truth. Without the Biblical doctrine of perfect
providential preservation, we are left with non-answers in these areas. This is
not a minor shift but one of seismic proportions. Fortunately, most CT
advocates of the past were better believers than theologians and have been
able to live with the inherent contradiction of their system by simply
declaring the gospel from the Textus Receptus (TR). They were incapable of
following their own premises out to the end of the road they were on. This
has now been challenged by the belligerent approach of the new breed of CT
511
adherents and proliferation of translations and the latest edition of their

evolutionary Greek Text.
Rehureks error is sadly perpetuated by contemporary fundamentalist
teachers and writers, many of whom have obtained their graduate degrees at
neo-evangelical seminaries. These men might preach great sermons on
preservation but ultimately have no way of ever coming up with a real text!
Some prize examples of semantic gymnastics can be found in the statements
of modern fundamentalism. Speaking of God and the preservation of
Scripture, Central Baptist Theological Seminary President, Kevin Bauder,
tries to argue the Lord is indifferent as to His Words as Bauder claims, He
might preserve some words and He might permit some to be lost, depending
upon His own purpose.3 Bob Jones University (BJU) professor, Stewart
Custer, speaking at Marquette Manor Baptist Church in Chicago in 1984
said that God preserved His Word buried, in the sands of Egypt.4 Larry
Oats of Maranatha Baptist College in Wisconsin, an institution that formerly
argued for the fact of the preserved Word of God in the King James Version,
claims, God could have preserved His Word but history proves He did
not.5 William Combs of the fundamentalist Detroit Baptist Seminary boldly
asserts, The Bible does not teach its own perfect preservation, and it is a
serious error to claim otherwise.6
The CT position is a fallacy as it claims to reach conclusions that
conform to the Bible, which are not derived from the Bible. It is true that
some CT advocates talk about preservation but only by investing in their
exegesis of preservation passages such as Matthew 5:18 entirely new
meanings. In effect, they act like Humpty-Dumpty who retorted scornfully to
Alices ignorance of his meaning, When I use a word, it means just what I
choose it to meanneither more nor less.7 Their position is not some
imaginative or honest attempt to follow the truth where it leads, but radical
interpretations of biblical texts based on Enlightenment premises. These
fundamentalist and evangelical scholars need correcting for when
theologically educated men make absurd statements they are no less absurd
than when the lay person makes them. We reject their arguments because
they are fundamentally illogical, and believers should not utilise unsound
arguments nor appeal to unbelievers to place their confidence in them. True
fundamentalists, especially those of the Reformed faith, will not surrender
our historic faith for the gods of Enlightenment thinking just to be seen as
acceptable by progressive evangelicals. The objections to the doctrine of
perfect preservation are rooted in philosophical pre-commitments and not
512
exegetical concerns. Like Ezra we will prepare our hearts to seek the law of
the LORD, and to do it (Ezra 7:10) whatever the cost.
The Bible and Preservation

Reformed Theologians have always regarded Reformed doctrines such
as the Sovereignty of God as the most consistent expression of Biblical
Theology. As such, the starting point is that the Bible is the propositional
revelation of God and hence it alone can be the ultimate test for truth and
knowledge. As Cornelius Van Til argues, It is the genius of Protestantism to
make the God of the Scriptures the final reference in all predication.8
Believers are mandated to presuppose the Scriptures in all of their thinking
and practice as the ultimate criterion of truth, whereas unbelievers resist this
obligation in every aspect of thought and life. To stand for perfect
preservation is arrogantly dismissed and those who still hold to it are subject
to ridicule as adopting the Bibles faith-view in order to escape from the
fact that textual criticism has shown that God did not preserve all of His
Words and make them available in every generation.
CT advocates will ridicule anyone who exalts the authority of the
written Word over the authority of liberal scholarship. Many adopt the
methodology of the evolutionists who figured that the best way to insulate
their doctrines from scrutiny is to prevent a debate from ever beginning in
the first place by ridiculing their opponents as fideistic and demanding that
religious presuppositional views must not mix with science. These
critics are removing the ancient landmarks concerning preservation and
replacing them with a rationalistic system of logic. Although they cry
fideistic presupposition at us, we may point out that they are presupposing
that God has not done what He promised to do with their unbiblical and
revisionist logic. Despite disclaimers, they have not abandoned faith in their
approach, just switched supreme norms. However, our faith is not blind or
irrational as it is conformed to the highest norms of thought in Scripture. CT
advocates have replaced faith in God with that in man through supposedly
neutral, scholarly, and scientific means to restore as closely as possible what
the original text of the Bible was. It is ironic that one side of the debate is
unfairly accused of engaging in fideism, when the reality is that both sides
are working from presuppositions in their differing supreme norms. Despite
their bombastic approach, CT advocates are like the rhetorician in the story
who wrote in the margin of his notes, Argument weak. Shout here.
513
CT advocates inconsistently look presuppositionally to the Church for

authority in receiving the Canon, and establishing the Creedal and
Confessional basis of our faith but now reject it for the canonised words.
This seems to be a curious way of proceeding. CT advocates need to
logically explain why the Epistle of Barnabas, a treatise against a Jewish
interpretation of the Law, which dates from the late first or early second
century is included in the New Testament canon of the fourth century
manuscript Codex Sinaiticus. Did God lead His people to recognise the
Words here but not the Canon? Ultimately, we could never have even begun
to argue from Scripture had not the Church received it and handed it down to
us. Indeed, if we had been given a different canon or a tampered translation
we would not know the difference. We would simply argue from that which
we were given. Douglas Wilson illustrates the inconsistency,
Unbelieving criticism says that words, verses, pericopes, and books are all up
for grabs. To grant this legitimacy with the first three, while drawing the line to
keep 66 inspired books, is like being a little bit pregnant. 2 John has 301
words while the last twelve verses of Mark have 260. At what word count does
the authority of science becomes illegitimate?9
Cornelius Van Til rejects such casuistry by making clear, We cannot

choose epistemologies [theories of knowledge] as we choose hats ... [as if] a
matter of taste.10 David Norris also observes, To profess verbal inspiration
and at the same time to subject the Scripture texts to rationalistic critical
methodology is to live in a crazed schizoid world, denying on the one hand
what is confessed on the other.11 By rejecting the Biblical presuppositional
approach to the text, CT advocates reinterpret preservation promises in light
of textual criticism. This invariably opens the door to all forms of pernicious
Biblical Criticism, which can be witnessed in the lives of men like Bart
Ehrman who correctly observed that once you adopt naturalistic premises it
is wholly consistent not to let it guide you on other doctrines such as
inspiration, inerrancy etc. After all, if it is irrational to believe that God
preserved all His Words, it is equally irrational to believe He inspired them.
Samuel Schnaiter of BJU critiques Wilbur Pickerings Majority Text
position by making the deeply disturbing critical observation, Finally,
although Pickering has avoided an excessive reliance on theological
presuppositions in his presentation, it is nevertheless clear that a theological
presupposition essentially undergirds his entire purpose.12 According to
Schnaiters fulminations it is acceptable and even necessary to have
theological presuppositions about the resurrection, but it is unacceptable to
514
hold theological presuppositions about the historical sources that the belief in
the resurrection is based upon. Anti-preservationist Daniel Wallace of Dallas
Theological Seminary concurs, A theological a priori has no place in
textual criticism.13 Interestingly, Bishop Westcott also rejected such an
approach to studying the text, as he wrote to Hort,
I hardly feel with you on this question of discussing anything doctrinally or on
doctrine. This seems to me to be wholly out of our province. We have only to
determine what is written and how it can be rendered. Theologians may deal
with the text and version afterwards.14
Leading contemporary textual critic, Bart Ehrman, concludes,

The fact that Warfield and Burgon both affirmed a doctrine of general
preservation, and yet held antithetical views of how the text was preserved
suggests that the doctrine is inappropriately used in support of any particular
view of the texts transmission history. Instead such affirmations can only be
made subsequent to the assessment of the evidence for the progress of the
history of transmission. The evidence must lead to the doctrine, not vice
versaelse the doctrine will simply be adduced to support a certain set of
historical conclusions.15
Such a statement shows the depth of rationalistic and unbiblical thought

that is now prevalent in modern fundamentalism. For an experienced
Seminary Professor like Schnaiter to implicitly reject both the existence and
need of a Biblical presupposition concerning a Biblical doctrine is frankly
astounding. Like the Deists, this view is premised on the belief that nature is
the only light needed by man in his search for God and His truth. The same
failure to renounce the intellectual autonomy of man outside the revealed
promises of God was at the centre of mans fall into sin. The Scriptures
explicitly warn that man as a finite creature is forbidden to test Gods Word
(Deut 6:16; Luke 4:12). Nowhere in Scripture does God separate so-called
spiritual truths from secular ones. By contrast, it is emphasised that all
wisdom and knowledge is found in the revelation of Christ, who is God in
the flesh (Col 2:3). The Psalmist makes it clear, In thy light shall we see
light (Ps 36:9). Unbiblical presuppositions will therefore oppose
themselves (2 Tim 2:25) as their fundamental beliefs will fail to properly
integrate because of inherent contradictions.
This uncertain certainty position of modern evangelicalism and
fundamentalism is in marked contrast to what the Lord spoke through
Solomon about the inspired Words (Prov 22:20-21). All of our doctrines
must be from the Bible (2 Tim 3:16) as it is self-attesting (1 Cor 14:29, 32,
515
37; Matt 18:19). How we view our world is not how God views it and
believers are mandated to think Gods thoughts after Him (Isa 55:9), which
requires a scriptural presuppositional approach to the textual problems. A
believer must study to show himself approved unto God (2 Tim 2:15). As
Cornelius Van Til puts it, The Bible is thought of as authoritative on
everything of which it speaks. And it speaks of everything.16 We are to
receive these promises by faith (Heb 11:13; Matt 13:23; Rom 1:17).
Biblical Presuppositions to Determine the True Text

(1) God revealed the Scriptures so men could know His will both in the
Old and New Testaments and in the future (Deut 31:9-13, 24-29; 1 John 1:14, 2:1-17; 2 Tim 3:14-17; 2 Pet 1:12-15). Certainly the Bible makes clear that
no Scripture was intended for only the original recipient (Rom 15:4, 16:2526; 1 Cor 10:11). God intended for those writings to be recognised and
received by the Church as a whole (e.g., Col 4:16; Rev 1:4). These Words
were to be guarded (1 Tim 6:20-21) as a form (pattern) of sound words for
the church (2 Tim 1:13-14) and to be used to instruct the future Church (2
Tim 2:2).
(2) The Bible promises that God will preserve every one of His Words
forever down to the very jot and tittle of the smallest letter (Pss 12:6-7,
33:11, 119:152, 160; Isa 30:8, 40:8; 1 Pet 1:23-25; Matt 5:18, 24:35).
(3) The Bible assures us that Gods Words are perfect and pure (Ps
12:6-7; Prov 30:5).
(4) The Bible promises that God would make His Words generally
available to every generation of believers (Deut 30:11-14; Isa 34:16, 59:21;
Matt 4:4; 2 Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17). (This is general availability, not necessarily
to every person on the planet.) Certainly, we are told that for around two
millennia in history only one small nation had the true and pure Words of
God, He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto
Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they
have not known them. Praise ye the LORD (Ps 147:19, 20 cf. Rom 2:14).
(5) The Bible promises there will be certainty as to the Words of God (2
Pet 1:19; Luke 1:4; Prov 1:23, 22:20-21; Dan 12:9-10; 1 John 2:20).
(6) The Bible promises that God would lead His saints into all truth,
that the Word, all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13, 17:8, 17).
(7) God states that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone
could not add or take away from His Words (Rev 22:18-19; Deut 12:32).
516
Indeed, the Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 3:2 warned the saints of his day to be
mindful of the Words of the Old Testament writings (v2a) and the New
Testament writings (v2b), which would be absurd if some of these Words
had been corrupted or lost.
(8) The Bible shows that the true Church of Christ would receive these
Words (Matt 28:19-20; John 17:8; Acts 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Thess 2:13; 1
Cor 15:3).
(9) The Bible implies that believers would receive these Words from
other believers (Deut 17:18; 1 Kgs 2:3; Prov 25:1; Acts 7:38; Heb 7:11; 1
Thess 1:6; Phil 4:9).
(10) The Bible shows that Bible promises may appear to contradict
science and reason. In Genesis 2 we see that a newly created world may look
ancient. However, the Scriptures remind us that It is better to trust in the
LORD than to put confidence in man (Ps 118:8).
(11) Christ implied the preservation of His very Words as a Standard of
future judgment (John 12:48). He also warned of the vanity of ignoring His
actual Words (Matt 7:26). Christ emphatically declared, the scripture cannot
be broken (John 10:35). In Matthew 22:29 Jesus rebuked, Ye do err, not
knowing the scriptures. If the Scriptures were only accessible in the
Originals then why would He chide them for being ignorant of Words that
were not available? Believers are commanded to contend for the faith (Jude
3) and this faith is based upon the Words of God (Rom 10:17). Note that
concerning the end-times, the Lord Jesus warned, Nevertheless when the
Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luke 18:8 cf. Amos
8:11; Lam 2:9).
Here are other Bible evidences that guide us:
(1) God also has established Biblical precedents which show that He
keeps and protects His Words. For instance, when Moses broke the original
copy of the tables of God, they were replaced very soon afterwards and not
hundreds of years later and Scripture makes the point that these second
tablets were written the words that were in the first tables (Deut 10:2). In
the book of Jeremiah, God responded to the burning of His inspired Words
by preparing Baruch to record in it all the former words that were in the
first roll (Jer 36:28).
(2) Jesus preached from the existing scrolls and we are explicitly told
they were scripture (Luke 4:21). Jesus also explicitly said the Scripture
that they were reading was spoken unto you by God (Matt 22:31 cf. Mark
517
12:24-26). Indeed, Christ said to His audience that when they read the
Scripture they would see that which was written by Daniel the prophet
himself (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Other New Testament passages argue
from the Old Testament text based on a phrase (as in Acts 15:13-17), a word
(Matt 22:32), or even the difference between the singular and plural form of
a word (as in Gal 3:16).
(3) The Bible warns that there would be those who would corrupt the
word of God (2 Cor 2:17; Jer 23:29) and handle it deceitfully (2 Cor 4:2).
The Apostle Paul warns of those who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator as heading
towards apostasy (Rom 1:25). There would arise false gospels with false
epistles (2 Thess 2:2). Jesus taught us that if a tree is corrupt, the fruit will be
corrupt (Matt 7:17). False prophets and false teachers corrupt the Scriptures
(2 Pet 2:1-3). We must understand that there will always be a line of
perversion as there will be of preservation. We are mandated to verify this
fruit based upon the premise that if a mans doctrinal belief is in error
invariably he will do the same to the Scriptures (2 Cor 2:17). The fear of the
LORD is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7); so all knowledge of the
Words of God is rooted in God.
(4) God utilised fallible but Spirit-filled human writers to pen His
divinely inspired Words of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). A fallible but
Spirit-filled John the Baptist could point infallibly to Christ. As much as a
fallible but Spirit-filled Church can recognise and receive the infallible
Canon, so can she also recognise and receive the infallible Words of this
Canon (John 10:27). Canonicity was recognised by the true Church (not
Rome) and the corollary of this must be that the Canonised Words must be
recognised by the true and faithful Church and not Romes texts or apostate
textual critics such as Westcott, Hort, Aland, Metzger et al.
(5) The Church at Antioch has a noteworthy position in Scriptures in
contrast to Alexandria. Antioch is the first place where the born-again
believer is called a Christian (Acts 11:26). It is also interesting to see that
where both Antioch and Alexandria are mentioned in the same passage,
Antioch is listed as a place of service, while Alexandria is listed as a place of
disruption (Acts 6:5-10). Egypt is for the most part associated with
ungodliness in the Bible (Isa 19:14, 30:1-3; Acts 7:39; Rev 11:8). Most of
the New Testament books were written originally to cities in the Byzantine
Text area and none written to Alexandria. However, it was precisely in
Alexandria that corrupters of the true text dominated.
518
Kent Brandenburg summarises from these presuppositions,

We know that God uses mathematical probability to bring certainty in the way
of fulfilled prophecies. He makes predictions and they all come to pass like He
said. The one hundred percent fulfillment is evidence. This relates to evidence
for verbal, plenary preservation of Scripture in two ways. First, every believer
is indwelt by the Holy Spirit. What believers agree are Gods Words are not
just mens opinions but the Spirit bearing witness, testifying to truth. A four to
five hundred year agreement on the textus receptus and Hebrew Masoretic
stands as evidence based on Scriptural presuppositions. Do we really think that
we can say that all those believers for all those years were wrong? In this one
area, Scripture, they were all deceived? And yet, at the end of that period of
time, unbelieving textual critics were actually enlightened?
Second, the promises of preservation are like the prophecies that God fulfilled.
Are we going to say that God fulfilled all of the prophecies, including the
detailed dozens in Daniel and the amazing many in Isaiah, but He didnt fulfill
His promises to protect His Word unto perfection? The fulfillment of prophecy
says that God keeps His promises. The power of their fulfillment extends to
the trust in Gods promises of perfect preservation and availability of all His
Words. One hundred textual critics, mostly unbelieving, cant be trusted with a
holy book written by a holy God.17
Westcott and Hort

The Bibles whole existence is due to the unique event that it is entirely
inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). From the first inscripturation we are
confronted immediately with the reality and involvement of the supernatural,
as well as its absolute authority. Therefore, those who reject the Bible on its
own premised overview will invariably treat it as any other ancient book. Its
uniqueness resides in the fact that while humans have been the vehicle of its
production, it never ceases to be the Word of God, communicated by Him,
developed, transmitted and preserved by Him. The question then is who or
what is the vehicle of agency that God providentially leads to receive these
Canonised Words. As Douglas Wilson argued in his debate with CT advocate
James White,
Given human agency, either the Church authoritatively recognizes the text, or
some other entity does, or there is no text. We both accept the Bible as the selfauthenticating Word of Godtherefore we agree there are canonical books
(along with canonical contents). That leaves us with the first two options in our
recognition of this canon. I am maintaining that the Church has the
responsibility to recognize that canon through her discipline (e.g., defrocking a
minister who claims that Romans is spurious). Now if you deny that the
519

Church has this authority, it means that you must grant it to some other entity.
What is that entity?...the science of autonomous textual criticism, far from
establishing verity, has only managed to establish thousands of variations and
increase a generally destructive confusion about the text of Scripture.18
God does not preserve Scripture using men and methods rooted in a
denial of what He has said. A textual position that is predicated on the
theories and conjectural emendations of men of the character of Westcott and
Hort must be rejected. Apostate textual critics should be accorded no higher
authority than evolutionary biologists discussing Genesis or existential
French philosophers on ethicswith a barrel of salt! To take a position that
an unregenerate man can reason correctly and cogently independent of
Scriptures as determination of Gods Words invariably sets man up as the
ultimate epistemological authority over what is true. However, having
ethically separated himself from the only source of knowledge, a text-critical
unbeliever seeks to suppress truth in order to interpret everything without
reference to God (Rom 1). Indeed, many false and pagan worldviews have
emerged from false conclusions about God from general revelation. We
cannot turn to unbelievers for truth about Scripture as each has differing and
contradictory ideas. This is why the Divines in the Westminster Confession
did not put the doctrine of God in their first chapter as they had to first
establish the source of knowledge.
It is also clear that a Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the
battle from the battle itself. An unbeliever is not neutral as to textual facts
and interpreting them (Matt 12:30; John 3:19). We are warned to avoid
walking in the counsel of the ungodly, standing in the way of sinners, sitting
in the seat of the scornful (Ps 1:1). Robert L Thomas argues,
Sin has distorted mans ability to receive truth. If the vessel for receiving truth
has a depraved mind, whatever it does by way of processing and reproducing
that truth will be lacking. It may lack more in some instances than in others,
but a blinding by sin will always exist.19
All truth does not possess the same authority, as the only absolutely
certain truth is that of inspired revelation. General revelation must always be
subordinate to special revelation. Gods Word must be the final arbiter in all
truth claims. Milton Terry warns of the attempt to undermine this doctrine,
Others have attempted various methods of reconciling science and the Bible,
and these have generally acted on the supposition that the results of scientific
discovery necessitate a new interpretation of the Scripture records, or call for
new principles of interpretation. The new discoveries, they say, do not conflict
520

with the ancient revelation; they only conflict with the old interpretation of the
revelation. We must change our hermeneutical methods, and adapt them to the
revelations of science. How for the thousandth time have we heard the story of
Galileo and the Inquisition.20
He continues,
Hasty natures, however, indulging in pride of intellect, or given to following
the dictum of honoured masters, may fall into grievous error in either of two
ways: They may shut their eyes to facts, and hold to a delusion in spite of
evidence; or they may become the obsequious victims of science falsely so
called. That certainly is a false science which is built upon inferences,
assumptions, and theories, and yet presumes to dogmatize as if its hypotheses
were facts. And that is a system of hermeneutics equally false and misleading
which is so flexible, under the pressure of new discoveries as to yield to the
putting of any number of new meanings upon an old and common word.21
Cornelius Van Til provides an insightful illustration that delineates how

foolish it is to turn to unbelievers to determine the Words of God by
rationalistic methods,
The intellect of fallen man may, as such, be keen enough. It may be compared
to a buzz-saw that is sharp and shining, ready to cut the boards that come to it.
Let us say that a carpenter wishes to cut fifty boards for the purpose of laying
the floor of a house. He has marked his boards. He has set his saw. He begins
at one end of the mark on the boards. But he does not know that his seven year
old son has tampered with the saw and changed its set. The result is that every
board he saws is cut slantwise and thus unusable because it is too short except
at the point where the saw first made its contact with the wood. So also
whenever the teachings of Christianity are presented to the natural man they
will be cut according to the set of sinful human personality. The result is they
may have formal understanding of the truth, mere cognition but no true
knowledge of God.22
Sad to say many fundamentalists do not agree. Mark Minnick of BJU

argues in the book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,
a textual critic may be an unbeliever when it comes to the Bibles doctrinal
truths. But when it comes to the Bibles textto this question of the Bibles
wordsa textual critic is initially little more than a reporter. Following this
initial reporting, a textual critic becomes an interpreter of this data.23
This is not the historic position of Bible-believing saints. Autonomous

theories of knowledge are riddled with problems. Apart from the revelation
of God in nature and in His Word, man is unable to rightly interpret reality.
We must always start with God in all our thinking or we will become fools in
521
attempting to rationally justify any knowledge claims, especially on spiritual

issues. As Paul warned Timothy, the approach must be presuppositional in
respect of the Word of God, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so
called (1 Tim 6:20). Minnicks theory is simply a Kantian wall of
antinomy between the phenomenal and noumenal world of epistemology,
which ultimately led Kant to a logically fallacious and self-refuting
scepticism. Van Til points out, even to say that there are some facts that can
be known without reference to God, is already the very opposite of the
Christian position.24 He goes on to make a pertinent observation to those
advocating neutral textual criticism,
Hence the difference between the prevalent method of science and the method
of Christianity is not that the former is interested in finding the facts and is
ready to follow the facts wherever they may lead, while the latter is not ready
to follow the facts. The difference is rather that the former wants to study the
facts without God, while the latter wants to study the facts in the light of the
revelation God gives of himself in Christ. Thus the antithesis is once more that
between those for whom the final center of reference in knowledge lies in man,
and those for whom the final center of reference for knowledge lies in God, as
this God speaks in Scripture.25
A typical historic view is that of Joseph Philpot, Fellow of Worcester

College, Oxford, and editor of The Gospel Standard who in 1857 argued
against a revision of KJV because the Biblical scholars of that day were
notoriously either tainted with popery or infidelity.26
Reformers and Preservation

Martin Luther sparked the Reformation on three pillars: faith, grace and
Scripture. The final pillar of Sola Scriptura predicated the Bible as the only
objective Protestant source of all authority available and was to be regarded
as Gods last Words to mankind. It effectively dethroned the pope and
enthroned the Bible. The Reformers were cognisant that the reason for the
darkness of the Medieval Period was a result of the Roman Church losing
sight of the true text in the original languages. They were also equally clear
that the dissemination of the Received Text through the printed editions had
sparked the Reformation and not the rise of nationalism, corruption in the
Roman Church, or even the Renaissance. Since the autographs were not
available, the Reformers knew that we must have a reliable tradition or
bridge of some sort which connects us to the original autographs. This bridge
must be undergirded with faith in a God who controls the flow of all
522
historical events through the true Church and not apostate autonomous
textual critics. The Reformers looked to ecclesiastical consensus in textual
issues in the same manner they had in Canonical, Trinitarian and
Christological issues.
The leading Reformers rejected Romes tradition and its corrupted
texts, and held fast to the Received Text readings, which they knew evoked
the wrath of Satan and had triggered the great Protestant Reformation during
which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and
torture. Rome had used a handful of copies in which numerous variants
existed in an attempt to refute the principle of Sola Scriptura. The Reformers
were well aware of the corruptions of the texts of Alexandria and regarded
the variant readings in the minority texts as either intentional or inadvertent
corruptions. The seventeenth century Confessions focused in on the doctrine
of special providential preservation, such as the Westminster Confession of
Faith and the Helvetica Consensus Formula, as a direct response to the attack
of the Council of Trent on the Received Text. The Council of Trent solemnly
affirmed in the following words,
Moreover the same Sacred and holy Synod, considering that no small utility
may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the
Latin editions now in circulation of the Sacred Books is to be held as
authentic, ordains and declares that the said old and Vulgate edition, which by
the lengthened usage of so many ages has been approved of in the Church.27
The Reformers asserted the counterpoint to the Vulgate that the

Received Text was the authentic text; as the locus of Biblical authority was
the apographs not the Church. Their view was not derived from the
supposedly neutral science of textual criticism but in their presuppositional
faith in the promises that God had preserved His Words for them. They knew
that an inspired Bible that no one could see was no use to them, for as Calvin
said on his commentary of 2 Peter 1:19 that, without the Word, there is
nothing left but darkness. Textual critics, Woodbridge and Balmer admit, It
is true that in the seventeenth century a good number of Christians esteemed
the Bibles they had in their hands as infallible.28 The liberal historian,
McCabe, accepted that the Reformers had no time for rationalistic textual
principles,
The reformers, indeed, extended little patronage to the exercise of reason in
religious matters; they denounced it and its fruit, philosophical speculation, as
an evil not to be tolerated; and Luther went so far as to assert (even to the
523

disgust of the Church of Rome) that a proposition may be true in theology and
false in philosophy.29
As we search the Reformation writings this fact becomes quickly

apparent. Samuel Tregelles notes,
Bezas text was during his life in very general use among Protestants; they
seemed to feel that enough had been done to establish it, and they relied on it
as giving them a firm basis.... After the appearance of the texts of Stephanus
and Beza, many Protestants ceased from all inquiry into the authorities on
which the text of the New Testament in their hands was based.30
Even the Anabaptist leader, Balthasar Hubmaier, took this position and
wrote in 1526,
Thou knowest, Zwingli, that the Holy Scripture is such a complete, compacted,
true, infallible, eternally immortal speech, that the least letter or tittle cannot
pass away in this book.31
So strongly did the Reformers and their heirs fall back on the TR that
textual critics such as Richard Bentley in 1716 derided it as the Protestant
Pope Stephens, but admitted that Stephens edition, set out and regulated
by himself alone, is now become the standard. The text stands, as if an
Apostle was his compositor.32
Although the Reformers were accused of bibliolatry it was not the
Bible they worshipped but the Author of it who has chosen to reveal Himself
empirically in His written Word. Despite the revisionist argument that Calvin
and Beza had no other option but to use the Received Text, the facts are that
they did have alternative options but deliberately rejected them. They may
not have had the quantity of evidence, but they were aware of the diversity of
the variant readings thrown up by the textual critics today. Instead, they
chose the path of Sacred Criticism which simply studied the texts to see what
was received by the Church through history rather than the rationalistic
restoration of the text by Enlightenment Criticism. They recognised that
copies and editions differed because of variants, but trusted the Holy Spirit
and the common faith of Gods people. Beza made it clear, that he was very
unwilling to amend the basic text and was interested largely in readings
which confirmed it.33 One Reformed critic of the TR, Greg Bahnsen admits,
Some Protestants have argued for the inspired infallibility of the vowel points
in the Hebrew Old Testament (e.g., the Buxtorfs and John Owen; the Formula
Consensus Helvetica more cautiously spoke of the inspiration of at least the
power of the points). The errorless transmission and preservation of the
524

original text of Scripture has been taught by men such as Hollaz, Quenstedt,
and Turretin.34
Challenge of the Vulgate

Cognisant of the role the Received Text had in damaging the Romanist
cause and giving authority to the Protestant cause, the Council of Trent
(1545-1563) declared Erasmus a Pelagian heretic, rejected his New
Testament, and edicted that only Jeromes Latin Vulgate was the authentic
Bible.35 Trents argument was that the Scriptures are corrupted at the fount
and we need an infallible Church to determine the Word of God, as one can
never be sure of the true text of Scripture. The Reformers posited a rejoinder
by maintaining that the Scriptures guide the Church, as we have, by Gods
providence, the uncorrupted fount, by His singular care and providence kept
pure in all ages. Ironically, now many fundamental Protestants are positing
that Rome was right when it sought to undermine our doctrine of Sola
Scriptura on the basis of the variants they showed in their manuscripts. They
argue that notwithstanding Romes other errors in theology, they were right
about the Scriptures, and the post-Reformation dogmatists were wrong.
To try and influence the English people back to Rome, the Jesuits
prepared an English New Testament translation in 1582 based upon the
Vulgate which was immediately sent to England, and secretly distributed
through the country. As one historian observed, The English Papists in the
seminary at Rheims perceiving that they could no longer blindfold the laity
from the scriptures, resolved to fit them with false spectacles; and set forth
the Rhemish translation in opposition to the Protestant versions.36 The
preface to this Rheims translation expressly states its purpose,
It is almost three hundred years since James Archbishop of Genoa, is said to
have translated the Bible into Italian. More than two hundred years ago, in the
days of Charles V the French king, was it put forth faithfully in French, the
sooner to shake out of the deceived peoples hands, the false heretical
translations of a sect called Waldenses.37
Catholic priest, Paolo Sarpi (1552-1623), in his History of the Council

of Trent recalls,
On the contrary, the major part of the Divines said, that it had been necessary
to account that translation, which formerly hath been read in all the churches
[Latin Vulgate], and used in the schools, to be divine and authentical,
otherwise they should yield the cause to the Lutherans, and open a gate to
innumerable heresies The Inquisitors will not be able to proceed against the
525

Lutherans, in case they know not Hebrew and Greek, because they will
suddenly answer, the text is not so, and that translation is false.38
Queen Elizabeth (1533-1603) was so concerned of the threat to English

unity by the Jesuit Rhemist Bible that she sent to Beza for assistance to
refute this perversion of the Received Text. It is recorded that he told her,
that one of her Majestys own subjects was far better qualified to defend the
Protestant cause against the Rhemists; and this person, he said, was Thomas
Cartwright.39 It was said of Thomas Cartwright (c. 1535-1603), that he
regarded the Vulgate as, the Version adapted by the Rhemists that all the
soap and nitre they could collect would be insufficient to cleanse the Vulgate
from the filth of blood in which it was originally conceived and had since
collected in passing so long through the hands of unlearned monks, from
which the Greek copies had altogether escaped.40 Brook records that,
Mr. Cartwright defended the holy Scriptures against the accusation of
corruption, and maintained that the Old and New Testaments written in the
original languages were preserved uncorrupted. They constituted the word of
God, whose works are all perfect, then must his word continue unimpaired;
and, since it was written for our instruction, admonition, and consolation, he
concluded that, unless God was deceived and disappointed in his purpose, it
must perform these friendly offices for the church of God to the end of the
world. If the authority of the authentic copies in Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek
were lost, or given up, or corrupted, or the sense changed, there would be no
high court of appeal to put an end to disputes; so that the exhortation to have
recourse to the law, the prophets, and the New Testament would be of very
little effect. In this case our state would be worse than theirs under the law, and
in the time of Christ; yea than those who lived some hundred years after
Christ, when the ancient fathers exhorted the people to try all controversies by
the Scriptures. Their own Gratian directs us, in deciding differences, not to the
old translation, but to the originals of the Hebrew in the Old Testament, and of
the Greek in the New.41
Thomas Cartwright observed this about preservation,

Woe unto the churches, if the Scriptures, the charters and records of heaven be
destroyed, falsified, or corrupted. These divine charters were safely kept in one
nation of the Jews; and though they were sometimes unfaithful, yet they kept
the keys of the Lords library: but now, when many nations have the keys, it is
altogether incredible that any such corruptions should enter in, as the
adversaries unwisely suppose. If the Lord preserved the book of Leviticus,
with the account of the ancient ceremonies, which were afterward abolished,
how much more may we conclude that his providence has watched over other
books of Scripture which properly belong to our times and to our salvation?
526

Will not the Scriptures bear witness to the perpetuity of their own authority?
Secret things belong to God; but things revealed belong to us, and to our
children forever. Jesus Christ said, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my
words shall not pass away. Notwithstanding the sacred writings were
disregarded, and even hated by most persons, they had been preserved entire
as they were the first day they were given to the church of God. More than
fifteen hundred years had elapsed, during which not any one book, nor part of
any book, of canonical Scripture had been lost: and it was evident not only that
the matter of the Scripture, but also the words; not only the sense and meaning,
but also the manner and form of speech in them remained unaltered.42
Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, William Whitaker (15481595), wrote the one extensive work on the subject of the Bible written by an
English Reformer. In a classic riposte to the Romanist translation posited
perfect preservation as an absolute necessity,
Now we, not doubtfully or only with some probable shew, but most certainly,
know that this Greek edition of the New Testament is no other than the
inspired and archetypal scripture of the new Testament, commended by the
apostles and evangelists to the Christian church. If God had permitted the
scripture to perish in the Hebrew and Greek originals, in which it was first
published by men divinely inspired, he would not have provided sufficiently
for his church and for our faith. From the prophetic and apostolic scripture the
church takes its origin, and the faith derives its source. But whence can it be
ascertained that these are in all respects prophetic and apostolic scriptures, if
the very writings of the prophets and apostles are not those which we
consult?43
Whitaker went on to say he accepted the Received Text handed down

by faith,
Now the Hebrew edition of the old, and the Greek of the New Testament, was
always held the authentic scripture of God in the Christian churches for six
hundred years after Christ. This, therefore, ought to be received by us also as
authentic scripture. If they doubt the major, we must ask them, whether the
church hath changed its authentic scripture, or hath not rather preserved, and
commended to all succeeding generations, that which was in truth authentic
from the very first? If it lost that which was published by the prophets and
apostles, who can defend that negligence, who excuse so enormous a
sacrilege?44
Whitaker also cleverly rejected the argument that the Masoretes had
corrupted the Hebrew Text,
Besides, if the Jews had wished to corrupt the original scriptures, they would
have laid their sacrilegious hands specially upon those places which concern
527

Christ and confirm the faith. But in those places these fountains run so clear
that one feels no lack: nay, they sometimes run far clearer than the Latin
streams.45
He also showed how God protected the Scriptures in the ages,

God protects the scriptures against Satan, as being their constant enemy. Satan
hath frequently endeavoured to destroy the scriptures, knowing that they stand
in his way: but he hath never spent any trouble or thought upon these unwritten
traditions; for he supposed that his whole object would be gained if he could
destroy the scriptures. In pursuance of this plan he hath raised up such impious
tyrants as Antiochus, Maximin, Diocletian, and others, who have endeavoured
utterly to quench the light of scripture. Now, if religion could remain entire
even when these books were lost, it would be in vain for Satan to labour with
such furious efforts to remove these books.46
Bishop of Salisbury and eminent Divine, John Jewel (1522-1571), who

was a strong apologist against the Church of Rome, also makes clear the
need of perfect preservation,
By the space of so many thousand years, the word of God passed by so many
dangers of tyrants, of Pharisees, of heretics, of fire, and of sword, and yet
continueth and standeth until this day, without altering or changing one letter.
This was a wonderful work of God, that having so many, so great enemies, and
passing through so many, so great dangers, it yet continueth still without
adding or altering of any one sentence, or word, or letter. No creature was able
to do this, it was Gods work. He preserved it, that no tyrant should consume
it, no tradition choke it, no heretic maliciously should corrupt it. For His
names sake, and for the elects sake, He would not suffer it to perish. For in it
God hath ordained a blessing for His people, and by it He maketh covenant
with them for life everlasting. Tyrants, and Pharisees, and heretics, and the
enemies of the cross of Christ have an end, but the word of God hath no end.
No force shall be able to decay it. The gates of hell shall not prevail against
it.47
Cambridge-educated Puritan preacher, Nicholas Gibbens, also retorted

in 1602,
For by these authorities it may seem apparent, that the Hebrew Text has been
corrupted by the Jews: which if it be; where is the truth the Scriptures to be
found, but either perished, or only remaining in that translation which the
Papists so greatly magnify. For answer whereunto, we affirm and testify by the
authority of the Scriptures themselves, (which is the voice of God) of the
Fathers, and of the adversaries themselves; that the Scriptures in the Hebrew
tongue are pure, and unspotted of all corruption.48
528
Johannes Andreas Quenstedt (1617-1688), the German Lutheran

dogmatician, argued,
We believe, as is our duty, that the providential care of God has always
watched over the original and primitive texts of the canonical Scriptures in
such a way that we can be certain that the sacred codices which we now have
in our hands are those which existed at the time of Jerome and Augustine, nay
at the time of Christ Himself and His apostles.49
English Puritan and theologian, Edward Leigh (1602-1671), explained

why we needed confidence in a pure text for our Bibles,
If the authority of the authentical copies in Hebrew, Chaldee and Greek fall,
then there is no pure Scripture in the Church of God, there is no high court of
appeal where controversies (rising upon the diversity of translations, or
otherwise) may be ended. The exhortations of having recourse unto the Law
and to the Prophets, and of our Saviour Christ asking How it is written, and
How readest thou, is now either of none effect, or not sufficient.50
The great Puritan, Thomas Watson (c. 1620-1686), makes clear,

The devil and his agents have been blowing at Scripture light, but could never
blow it out; a clear sign that it was lighted from heaven. The letter of
Scripture has been preserved, without any corruption, in the original tongue.51
The prodigious Puritan scholar, John Owen, who entered Oxford at 12

years old, adopted the same stance,
It can, then, with no colour of probability be asserted (which yet I find some
learned men too free in granting), namely, that there hath the same fate
attended the Scripture in its transcription as hath done other books. Let me say
without offence, this imagination, asserted on deliberation, seems to me to
border on atheism. Surely the promise of God for the preservation of his word,
with his love and care of his church, of whose faith and obedience that word of
his is the only rule, requires other thoughts at our hands.52
Swiss Hebraist, Johannes Buxtorf (1599-1664), defended the

preservation of even the Hebrew vowel points against the attack of Louis
Cappel with studies published in 1624 and 1650. Buxtorf also affirmed the
purity of the Received Text in 1620,
From the extremity of the East to the extremity of the West the word of God is
read with one mouth and in one manner; and in all the books that there are in
Asia, Africa, and Europe, there is discernible a full agreement, without any
difference whatever.53
John Woodbridge notes of Romes influence in this attack and states,

Cappel was able to publish one of these works only with the help of the
529
Roman Catholic apologist, Jean Morin.54 Martin Klauber also notes the
staunch defence of the Masoretic Text by the Reformers by noting,
Reformed scholars of the mid-seventeenth century, following the lead of
Buxdorf, considered all other versions of the OT as subordinate to the
Masoretic text. ... Cappels theories were generally rejected in Reformed
circles.55
A typical presuppositional approach based on special providential
preservation was that of the Principal of the University of Edinburgh, Robert
Rollock (1555-1599). He argued for the preservation of the divine oracles
of God unto our times and the retention of many disputed passages such as
1 John 5:7, Mark 16, John 8 based on the fact that these are, our Greek
books, which we hold for authentical, have this verse and our Church
receives it.56 He rejected all the textual-critical assaults of Rome on the
Received Text by summarising,
Thus we see then the adversaries cannot prove by these places that the Greek
edition of the New Testament is corrupted, and so act authentical. Wherefore it
resteth that the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New
Testament is only authentical.57
Henry Walker in 1642 also discerned the wiles of the Jesuit plot and
argued that the supposed textual problems were vanity and inventions
as, the Pope is glad of these distractions amongst us, and would now take
the opportunity to snatch away the Bible from us; he would fain take our
religion away; but we hope to send him back to Rome again with a
powder.58 Narcissus Marsh (1638-1713), provost of the College of Dublin
and later Archbishop of Armagh, writes against one sceptic who attacked the
Hebrew Masoretic Text,
It may be suspected, that the intention is to bring it into doubt, whether we
have any such thing, as a true Bible at all, which we may confide in, as Gods
Word. However, I doubt not, but that, by Gods Providence, as the Hebrew
Text hath hitherto stood firm, so it will stand on its own bottom to wear out all
assaults against it, and be, what it always was, received as the undoubted Word
of God, when all the arguments and objections against it are vanishd into
smoke.59
The Rhemist version was later revised by Richard Challoner in the

mid-eighteenth century. He was an English convert from Protestantism who
knew well the nuances of the King James Version and deliberately sought to
revise the Douay-Rheims into closer conformity with the diction of the King
James Version.60 Notwithstanding, so successful was the King James Version
530
and Cartwrights rebuttal of the Rhemist version that the devil was forced to
change his strategy and attack not by the Latin but by the Greek.
It was about another century before Rome refined a weapon to combat
Sola Scriptura at the hands of Romanist priest, Richard Simon (1638-1712),
through Textual Criticism. Baird tells us, Simon sharpened historical
criticism into a weapon that could be used in the attack on Protestantisms
most fundamental error: the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.61 Indeed, Simon
himself explains plainly his purpose, the great changes that have taken
place in the manuscripts of the Bibleas we have shown in the first book of
this worksince the first originals were lost, completely destroy the
principle of the Protestants ... if tradition is not joined to scripture, there is
hardly anything in religion that one can confidently affirm.62 They
assembled many of the variant readings into Polyglots to aid this attack. The
Cambridge History of the Bible accepts the universal standard of the TR
amidst the Reformed Churches,
In creating the phrase textus receptus they had confirmed acceptance of the
third edition of Estienne and Bezas recension of it as the standard version.
Effective awareness of the significance of textual criticism for the ancient
versions of the biblical text may be said to begin only with the Biblia
Polyglotta of Bishop Walton in 1657.63
Even the ecumenical textual critic, Dan Wallace, accepts that, New
Testament textual criticism was born as a polemic against Protestants,
intended to show that they couldnt really trust the Bible!64 Thus under the
influence of Romanism, textual criticism emerged from enlightenment and
humanistic grounds and would culminate in the 1881 Revised Version.
The Reformers did not take their creedal stand against Rome upon a
utopian inerrant original autograph. To them, there was an identifiable and
existing text in use by the Greek-speaking Church which had been
transmitted from a handwritten manuscript form to a printed form. Likewise,
they did not advocate a radical individualism where every man decides for
himself which words are genuine and would have rejected the current state
of textual criticism, where every man is a textual critic with horror. It is true,
that unlike Luther, John Calvin did not initially uniformly base his readings
on the text of Erasmus and had an affinity for a renegade edition published
by Simon de Colines (1534).65 This text included a number of variant
readings from critical text manuscripts and from Romes Complutensian.66
However, in later life Calvin rejected this view to return to the TR preferring
the common readings by faith.67 The facts of history are that Rome accused
531
Protestants of having a paper pope by judging all matters religious with the
Scripture. Ironically, five hundred years ago a man positing this kind of
accusation would be called a Romanist heretic but today he is called an
enlightened fundamentalist! Indeed, TR critics even attack preservationists
today by equating heresy with faith in an inerrant Bible.
Westminster Confession of Faith

A good example of the Reformation view on preservation is the
Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) written in response to Tridentine
Romanism and early rationalism. The Confessional understanding of the
doctrine of Holy Scripture was a dyke to keep out the deadly waters of
disbelief in Gods word. Like the early Reformers, the Divines looked first at
the history of manuscript transmission to see what God had done, rather than
the manuscripts to see what man had to do. The Westminster Divines never
argued for the preservation of a copy, but the preservation of the Words,
because that is what the Bible teaches. That took a presuppositional
approach to this issue. They knew that if there is another authority (whether
it be our individual determination of trustworthiness or the authority of an
ecclesiastical leader) by which we are to determine and believe that the Bible
is the Word of God, that authority itself would be the ultimate authority. Is it
up to the reader to discern which portions of the Scriptures are inspired and
which are not? Hence, the WCF (1:4) states,
The authority of Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed,
depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God
(who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received,
because it is the Word of God.
A crystallisation of the opposition to textual and historical criticism is

stated in positive terms in the WCF. It should be noted that the Confession
first deals with the canon of Scripture before it turns to discuss the doctrine
of inspiration and authority and preservation. There is then a refutation of the
canonicity of the Apocrypha before the Confession deals with the declaration
of special providential preservation. This understanding of cause and effect
in respect of canonisation will be an important principle to remember when
we consider the preservation of the Scriptures. This seems to have been a
reasoned and logical presuppositional unfolding as they are implicitly stating
that the same methodology for determining canonicity must be extended to
the individual words of the canon.
532
The Confession is a constitutional document and must be interpreted in

the light of its historical context. Chapter 1.8 should not be read in a vacuum
of this history, which is presuppositionally set forth in the prior statements
which identify the canonical text, and disclaim the Apocrypha as being noncanonical. Unmistakably, the Westminster Divines claimed to possess the
authentic text, and all critics should candidly acknowledge this rather than
attempting to re-interpret it to conform to the fluid tradition of modern
textual criticism. The divines were men of prodigious learning and were
aware of many minor textual disagreements going back to the days of the
Early Fathers. Yet this awareness did not diminish their unshakable
conviction that they continued to hold in hand an indestructible authentical
revelation. They knew it was the Churchs treasure and rock of defence
against Rome and not one to ever casually or carelessly surrender. Given this
approach, we are left with one of two choices: either the text they used is the
authentic text or their claim was false. The Confession requires an
acceptance of the Reformation Text as the authoritative court of appeal or
else it is meaningless. Indeed, so seriously did the Westminster Divines view
even spelling errors in various printings of the Authorised Version as
dangerous to religion, that they moved Parliament to outlaw the
importation of bootleg reprints from Europe.68
William Orr in his commentary on the WCF makes clear, Now this
affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New
which was known to the Westminster divines was immediately inspired by
God because it was identical with the first text that God has kept pure in all
the ages. The idea that there are mistakes in the Hebrew Masoretic texts or in
the TR of the New Testament was unknown to the authors of the Confession
of Faith.69 Indeed, the Westminster Confession divines clearly cognisant of
textual critics positing naturalistic and man-centred doctrines of preservation
explicitly states that the doctrine of preservation must be hedged by Holy
Scripture alone:
IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and
obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly
upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be
received, because it is the Word of God
X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be
determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines
of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are
to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
533
The WCF notably does not argue that Scripture is established by the
prior and superior authority of modern textual criticism, but that the perfectly
preserved TR (as cited in the WCF), sits in judgment upon textual criticism.
The liberal writer, McCabe, writing in 1897 agrees that the Westminster
divines had assumed the special providential preservation of all the words by
sneering,
Until the seventeenth century divines had assumed that Providence had
miraculously guarded its inspired books. From this torpid belief they were at
length roused by the controversies on the date and origin of the vowel points
of the Hebrew text between the Buxtorfs and Morinus and Cappell, and by the
discovery of a vast number of variations in the manuscripts and printed books
of Scripture. Kennicotts Hebrew Bible, published from 1776 to 1790, gave
200,000 variations. Thus a door was opened to a certain reverent kind of
criticism.70
Leading contemporary textual critic, Dan Wallace, admits that the

Divines based their doctrine of perfect preservation on the TR,
The response by Protestants was swift, though perhaps not particularly well
thought out. In 1646, the first doctrinal statement about God preserving his
text was formulated as part of the Westminster Confession. The problem is that
what the Westminster divines were thinking of when they penned that
confession was the TR. By virtually ignoring the variants, they set themselves
up for more abuse.71
Swiss-Italian Protestant theologian, Francis Turretin (1623-1687),

expounded on the early confessional doctrine of Biblical preservation and
clearly understood it to mean entire preservation, Nor can we readily
believe that God, who dictated and inspired each and every word to these
inspired men, would not take care of their entire preservation.72
Richard Capel, one of the Westminster Divines, warned concerning
those who undermined the preservation of Scripture when he wrote in 1658,
And to the like purpose is that observation, that the two Tables written
immediately by Moses and the Prophets, and the Greek Copies immediately
penned by the Apostles, and Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made use
of, except by a very few. And that we have none in Hebrew or Greek, but what
are transcribed. Now transcribers are ordinary men, subject to mistake, may
fail having no unerring spirit to hold their hands in writing.
Referring to these types of statements, Capel immediately writes,

These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head
and heart, but open the door to Atheism and quite to fling off the bridle, which
only can hold them and us in the ways of truth and piety: this is to fill the
534

conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the Originals: And if
the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be clean.73
Another of the original members of the Westminster assembly, John

Lightfoot, writes, The same power and care of God that preserves the
church would preserve the Scriptures pure to it: and He that did, and could,
preserve the whole could preserve every part, so that not so much as a tittle
should perish.74
J S Candlish rightly observed in 1877 that, the word authentic is used,
not in the modern sense in which it has been employed by manyas
meaning historically true, but in its more literal sense, attested as a correct
copy of the authors work.75 Indeed, the Reformers would have no grounds
to oppose the Vulgate as deviating from the fountain of the originals if their
text was also corrupted and uncertain. It is also notable that the Westminster
Confessional documents, including the Bible version used in conjunction
with the Annotations, all quote the Authorised Version including so-called
problematic passages such as 1 John 5:7. Reformed church historian,
Richard Muller, summarised the post-Reformation Reformed view of the
providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures,
By original and authentic text, the Protestant orthodox do not mean the
autographa which no one can possess but the apographa in the original
tongue which are the source of all versions. The Jews throughout history and
the church in the time of Christ regarded the Hebrew of the Old Testament as
authentic and for nearly six centuries after Christ, the Greek of the New
Testament was viewed as authentic without dispute. It is important to note that
the Reformed orthodox insistence on the identification of the Hebrew and
Greek texts as alone authentic does not demand direct reference to autographa
in those languages: the original and authentic text of Scripture means,
beyond the autograph copies, the legitimate tradition of Hebrew and Greek
apographa.
The case for Scripture as an infallible rule of faith and practice and the
separate arguments for a received text free from major (non-scribal) error rests
on an examination of the apographa and does not seek the infinite regress of
the lost autographa as a prop for textual infallibility.76
Other Confessions
The Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675), which was drafted amidst
the rising tide of text-critical challenges is even more explicit that we have
all the Words of God perfectly preserved for us today to the jot and tittle. It
extended the doctrine of inspiration and perfect preservation to the very
535
Hebrew vowel points and argued that those who accept variant readings,
bring the foundation of our faith and its inviolable authority into perilous
hazard,
CANONS
I. God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word, which is the
power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth (Rom. 1:16),
committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but has also
watched and cherished it with paternal care ever since it was written up to the
present time, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of
man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and
goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a sure word of
prophecy and Holy Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:15), from which, though heaven
and earth perish, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass (Matt. 5:18).
II. But, in particular, the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament, which we
have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church,
unto whom formerly were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), is, not
only in its consonants, but in its vowelseither the vowel points themselves,
or at least the power of the pointsnot only in its matter, but in its words,
inspired of God, thus forming, together with the Original of the New
Testament, the sole and complete rule of our faith and life; and to its standard,
as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, oriental and occidental, ought to be
applied, and where ever they differ, be conformed.
III. Therefore we can by no means approve the opinion of those who declare
that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was determined by mans will
alone, and do not scruple at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they
consider unsuitable, and amend it from the Greek Versions of the LXX and
others, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Chaldee Targums, or even from other
sources, yea, sometimes from their own reason alone; and furthermore, they do
not acknowledge any other reading to be genuine except that which can be
educed by the critical power of the human judgment from the collation of
editions with each other and with the various readings of the Hebrew Original
itselfwhich, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally,
they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the
Versions of the ancient interpreters which differ from our Hebrew context
other Hebrew Originals, since these Versions are also indicative of ancient
Hebrew Originals differing from each other. Thus they bring the foundation of
our faith and its inviolable authority into perilous hazard.
There are many other Confessional writings exhibiting TR only

readings. For instance, the influential Particular Baptist Confession of Faith
of 1644 cites Acts 8:37 and the disputed long ending of Mark. The Particular
536
Baptist Second London Confession of Faith, originally printed in 1677

references 1 John 5:7 to prove Trinitarianism and references the long ending
of Mark three times.77 The General Baptist Orthodox Creed of 1679 writes
out 1 John 5:7 in the text and references it five times. The Baptist New
Hampshire Confession (1833) also concurs:
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is an
infallible and inerrant treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its
author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its
matter and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true
centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human
conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.78
Conclusion
It is axiomatic to even the most ardent critic of the KJV that the
recovery of the autographic text is outside the possibility of recovery
simply by a neutral textual scientific methodology. Even the leading
exponents of textual criticism candidly concede this. By eliminating Gods
work of preservation, they have left the Church disarmed, vulnerable and in
total confusion. They are like those of old of whom God says in the last verse
of the book of Judges, In those days there was no king in Israel: every man
did that which was right in his own eyes (Judg 21:25). These multiversionists have no final authority, save for their own reasoning or
outsourcing to a scholar to tell them what God probably said.
When CT advocates appeal to an authoritative Bible from their
evolutionary text they are functioning as an illusionist. Their infallible Bible
is lost in a vaporous philosophical cul-de-sac and they are desperate for
others not to possess one either. They believe that the Bible emerged from a
big bang and then it was lost. Thanks to an evolutionary path which will
culminate one day through liberal scholarship it may theoretically reappear
in the future, although they do not think so. However, God has promised
preservation in the minutiae, and not simply in the main. Although the Bible
is not exhaustive in setting forth every detail of the preservation of Gods
Words, when and where it speaks, it speaks with Gods authority. This
authority does not extend to all competing and contradictory theories of the
mode and methodologies of preservation. We should never be tempted to
surrender the clear promises of Gods Word (1 Cor 4:6) amidst the capricious
waves of textual critical theories.
537
The Scriptures explicitly teach that preservation is a work of God and

offers no encouragement to those who seek a compromise with rationalistic
textual criticism. There can be no question as to what God did, as He never
acts contrary to what He promised. Even the contemporary agnostic textual
critic, Bart Ehrman, accepts the TR advocates are the only consistent group
on preservation,
One cannot read the literature produced by the various advocates of the
Majority text without being impressed by a remarkable theological
concurrence. To one degree or another, they all (to my knowledge, without
exception) affirm that Gods inspiration of an inerrant Bible required His
preservation of its text.79
Ehrman also accepts as fallacious the logic of those who argue that God
was involved in preservation but this was just general, as he argues, If
one affirms Gods involvement in the transmission process in any way at all,
is it anything but high handed to claim that He was generally, but not fully
involved?80
The disciples of Westcott and Hort have now for a century disturbed
the Protestant world by making merchandise of the Church implicitly
arguing that all along Rome has always been right. This deadly poison once
confined to the corners of dusty German university philosophy classrooms
has now routed a whole generation of churches and seminaries. Theological
rationalism and textual criticism spread like ivy, the growth stages of which
have been described as sleeping, creeping, and finally leaping. Textual
criticism has proven to be liberalism and Romanisms destructive child. It
emerged from the same graveyard of unbelief as liberalism, Deism, and
Darwinism. It is interesting to note that the latest United Bible Societies Text
descended from the Westcott and Hort family boasts, the new text is a
reality, and as the text distributed by the United Bible Societies and by the
corresponding office of the Roman Catholic Church (an inconceivable
situation until quite recently) it has rapidly become the commonly accepted
text for research and study in universities and church.81 The United Bible
Societies Vice-President is Roman Catholic Cardinal Onitsha of Nigeria. On
the executive committee is Roman Catholic Bishop Alilona of Italy and
among the editors is Roman Catholic Cardinal Martini of Milan. Patrick
Henry happily claims, Catholics should work together with Protestants in
the fundamental task of Biblical translation [They can] work very well
together and have the same approach and interpretation ... [This] signals a
new age in the church.82
538
In 1943, the Papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu encouraged a new

ecumenically translated Bible as it said, These translations [should] be
produced in cooperation with separated brothers.83 Indeed, the Introduction
in that Catholic Bible says,
In general, Nestles-Alands Novum Testamentum Graece (25th edition, 1963)
was followed. Additional help was derived from The Greek New Testament
(editors Aland, Black, Metzger, Wikgren) produced for the use of translators
by the United Bible Societies in 1966.84
In 1924, the liberal paper The Christian Century said clearly that the
Bible of the fundamentalist is one Bible: the Bible of Modernism is
another. 85 Today, we have the same Ecumenical Greek Text for the
modernist, liberal and Romanist Bibles. Just as Christ was hated by the
world and despised by the conservative religious leaders in His day (Matt
12:14, 24, 15:12, 27:18), so the perfect Written Word is similarly attacked
today. Indeed, a telling evidence for the truth of the TR can be seen by
simply observing the text that the modern scribes envy, fear and mock the
most. When once Protestants looked to the Received Text as the final court
of appeal in faith and practice, they now look to Rome and apostates to
adjudicate over what the Words actually are of the evolving text. We are
being led by Rome and apostate textual critics (Semler, Griesbach,
Lachmann, Metzger et al.) in this enlightened approach to text criticism,
which simply continued Romes agenda but under a different banner.
Through these fifth columnist allies, Romes assault against the despised
Protestant Pope has swept the field. Yet sadly so many fundamentalists
have embraced such a corrupted source as their infallible rule of faith.
In our supposed postmodern age which opposes certitude of truth and
morality, the buffet style approach to the true text will lead the churches
back to Rome in a Deformation and finally to the certainty of the authority
of the Antichrist. By relegating Gods Providence outside of His Words they
have robbed Him of His glory and urged us to be thankful for the elevation
of mans autonomous reason. However, our Reformation history and
consequent revivals testify that God is not indifferent to His Words.
Protestants rejected the authority of the Popes, because of their clear
contradictions with one another; so we reject Romes critical textual position
which results in the same nebulous position. Despite their worship of the
contemporary gods of modern textual criticism, we will not embrace the
idols of Enlightenment modernity. Conservative CT advocates, such as Jon
Rehurek, would rather believe the textual history cobbled together by mainly
539
unbelieving textual critics than the promises of Scripture or the historical

doctrinal statements of our forefathers.
It is amazing that Reformed believers who believe in the depravity of
unregenerate man and the degeneration of man and the world system in
general, have accepted that scientific rationalism and classical education
have somehow evolved to the point where apostates and liberals are more
qualified to discover and translate Gods Word today than in 1611.
Michael Maynard makes a pertinent observation in his work A History of the
Debate Over I John 5:7-8, Received Text advocates are still waiting for the
fundamentalists minority text advocates to explain why they trust four
liberals and a Jesuit, who is in line to become the next pope, with the identity
of the New Testament.86 What a tragedy!
Notes
Jon Rehurek, Preservation of the Bible: Providential or Miraculous? The Biblical
View, The Masters Seminary Journal 19 (2008): 71-90.
2
Ibid, 71.
3
Kevin Bauder, One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James
Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 159-160.
4
Jack Moorman, Forever Settled (Collingswood: Bible For Today, 1985), 90-95.
5
M H Reynolds Jr, Dangerous Misconceptions Concerning Satan, Foundation
Magazine (May-June 1996), Editorial.
6
William Combs, The Preservation of Scripture, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 5
(2000): 38.
7
Lewis Caroll, Through the looking-glass, and what Alice found there (with fifty
illustrations by John Tenniel) (London: Spark Educational Publishing, 2003), 219.
8
Cornelius Van Til, The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel (Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 10.
9
Douglas Wilson, Discerning the Manuscript Traditions, Credenda 10/1 online at
http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-1disputatio.php accessed 20 April 2009.
10
Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, Vol 2 (Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1932), Introduction.
11
David W Norris, The Big Picture: The Authority and Integrity of the Authentic Word
of God (Cannock: Authentic Word, 2004), 294.
12
Cited in Textual Criticism and the Modern English Version Controversy, Biblical
Viewpoint 16 (April 1982): 72.
13
The Majority Text by Daniel Wallace in Bart D Ehrman, The Text of the New
Testament in Contemporary Research (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 1995), 309.
14
Arthur Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott (London: Macmillan,
1903), 393.
15
Cited in Wilbur Pickering in The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, 1977), Appendix A from a copy sent to him personally by Bart D Ehrman,
1
540

New Testament Textual Criticism: Search for Method, MDiv thesis, Princeton Theological
Seminary, 1981, 44.
16
Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1976), 2.
17
Kent Brandenburg, The Erroneous Epistemology of Multiple Version Onlyism,
online at http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2009/03/erroneous-epistemology-ofmultiple.html, accessed 31 March 2009.
18
Douglas Wilson, Discerning the Manuscript Traditions, Credenda 10/1 online at
http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-1disputatio.php accessed 20 April 2009.
19
Robert L Thomas, General Revelation and Biblical Hermeneutics, The Masters
Seminary Journal 9 (1998): 5-23.
20
Milton S Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old
and New Testaments, 2d ed (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, nd), 533.
21
Ibid, 534.
22
Van Til, Defense of the Faith, 71.
23
Mark Minnick, Lets Meet the Manuscripts, in From the Mind of God to the Mind
of Man, ed James B Williams (Greenville: Ambassador-Emerald, 1999), 71.
24
Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian
and Reformed, 1969), 5.
25
Ibid, 6.
26
Joseph Charles Philpot, The Authorized Version of 1611, The Gospel Standard
(April 1857).
27
J Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent,
(Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2003), 19.
28
John D Woodbridge and Kenneth S Kantzer, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the
Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 219.
29
Joseph McCabe, Modern Rationalism: Being a Sketch of the Progress of the
Rationalistic Spirit in the Nineteenth Century (London: Watts, 1897), 9.
30
Samuel Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with
Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principles (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1854),
33-35.
31
Henry Clay Vedder, Balthasar Hbmaier, the Leader of the Anabaptists (New York:
G P Putnams Sons, 1905), 190.
32
James Henry Monk, The Life of Richard Bentley (London: J G & F Rivington,
1833), 399.
33
Irena Doruta Backus, The Reformed Roots of the English New Testament
(Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Papers, 1980), 6-7.
34
Greg Bahnsen, The Inerrancy of the Autographa, in Inerrancy, ed Norman Geisler
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), 155.
35
Will Durant, The Reformation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957), 285.
36
Cited in William Fulke, Confutation of the Rhemish Testament (New York: Leavitt,
Lord & Co, 1834), preface essay by editor.
37
Gerald Lewis Bray, Documents of the English Reformation 1526-1707 (Cambridge:
James Clarke & Co, 2004), 366.
38
Paolo Sarpi, History of the Council of Trent, trans by Nathaniel Brent, (London:
1629), 156.
541

39
Benjamin Brook, Memoir of the Life and Writings of Thomas Cartwright (London:
John Snow, 1845), 258.
40
Ibid, 276.
41
Ibid, 274-5.
42
Ibid, 275-6.
43
William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: against the Papists, especially
Bellarmine and Stapleton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1588), 142, 148.
44
Ibid, 155.
45
Ibid, 162.
46
Ibid, 653.
47
John Jewel, The Works of John Jewel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1848),
7:291.
48
Nicholas Gibbens, Questions and Disputations Concerning the Holy Scripture
(London: 1602), 316. Cited in David S Katz, Gods Last Words: Reading the English Bible
from the Reformation to Fundamentalism (Cambridge: Yale University, 2004), 75.
49
Cited in Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture: A Study in the Theology of the
Seventeenth-Century Lutheran Dogmaticians (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1955), 139.
50
Edward Leigh, Treatise, Vol 1 (London: 1656), vi, 102-3.
51
Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 27.
52
John Owen, The Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1853),
357.
53
Cited critically in Henry Charles Fox, On the Revision of the Authorised Version of
the Scriptures: With an Account of the Revision Now (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1875),
10.
54
John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: Towards an Evaluation of the Rogers and
McKim Proposal, Trinity Journal 1 (1980): 202.
55
Martin I Klauber, The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675): An Introduction and
Translation, Trinity Journal 11 (1990): 105-106.
56
Robert Rollock, A Treatise of Effectual Calling (1603) (Edinburgh: Woodrow
Society, 1844), 71.
57
Ibid, 127.
58
Henry Walker, Five Lookes Over the Professors of the English Bible (London: 1642)
cited in Katz, Gods Last Words, 76.
59
Edward Pocock, The Theological Works, ed Leonard Twells (London: 1740), i, 74.
Cited in Katz, Gods Last Words, 75.
60
William Baird, History of New Testament Research: From Deism to Tubingen
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 19.
61
F F Bruce, Transmission and Translation of the Bible, Expositors Bible
Commentary, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 1:52-53.
62
Cited in Werner Georg Kmmel, The New Testament: The History of the
Investigation of Its Problems, trans S McLean Gilmour and Howard C Kee (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1972), 41.
63
J Greenslade, ed, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol 3 (Cambridge: University
Press, 1963), 64.
64
Dan Wallace, Is the Bible a Paper Pope for Protestants?, online at http://
www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/08/is-the-bible-a-paper-pope-for-protestants/
accessed 4 February 2009.
542

65
Theodore P Letis, The Majority Text: Essays and Reviews in the Continuing Debate,
(Edinburgh: Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987), 119.
66
Greenslade, ed, The Cambridge History of the Bible, 61.
67
Theodore P Letis, Edward Freer Hillss Contribution to the Revival of the
Ecclesiastical Text (Philadelphia: The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical
Studies, 1987), 26.
68
Frederick Scrivener, Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1884), 25.
69
William F Orr, The Authority of the Bible as Reflected in the Proposed Confession
of 1967, as quoted by Letis, The Majority Text, 174.
70
McCabe, Modern Rationalism, 46.
71
Wallace, Is the Bible a Paper Pope for Protestants? online at http://
www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2007/08/is-the-bible-a-paper-pope-for-protestants/
accessed 4 February 2009.
72
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans George Musgrave Giger, ed
James T Dennison Jr (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 1:71.
73
Richard Capel, Capels Remains (London, 1658), 19-43.
74
John Lightfoot, The Whole Works of Rev John Lightfoot (London: J F Dowe, 182225), 408.
75
J S Candlish, The Doctrine of the Westminster Confession on Scripture, The
British and Foreign Evangelical Review 26 (January 1877) as cited in Letis, The Majority
Text, 174.
76
Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1993), 433.
77
For a complete list of Baptist Confessions citing the TR see Thomas Ross, The
Canonicity of the Received Bible Established from Reformation and Post-Reformation
Baptist Confessions, online at http://thross7.googlepages.com/CanonicityoftheTRSeenin
BaptistConfes.pdf accessed on 5 Februray 2009.
78
Philip Schaff, ed, The Creeds of Christiandom with a History and Critical Notes.
Vol III: The Evangelical Protestant Creed (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1931), 742.
79
Cited in Wilbur Pickering, from a copy sent to him personally by Bart D Ehrman:
New Testament Textual Criticism: Search for Method, MDiv thesis, Princeton Theological
Seminary, 1981, 40.
80
Ibid, 47.
81
Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm
B Eerdmans, 1995), 35.
82
Patrick Henry, New Directions in New Testament Study (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1979), 232-234.
83
The New American Bible: Basic Youth Edition (Winona: Saint Marys Press, 2005),
Preface, 9.
84
Ibid, 1054-1055.
85
Charles Clayton Morrison, Fundamentalism and Modernism, Two Religions, The
Christian Century (January 3, 1924): 6.
86
Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7, 8 (Tempe AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995), 329.
543
51
ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION?
A Response to William W Combs of
Detroit Baptist Seminary
Jeffrey Khoo
Introduction
The Westminster Larger Catechism says, The Holy Scriptures are to
be read with an high and reverent esteem of them; with a firm persuasion
that they are the very Word of God.1 The question is raised: Is it a sin and a
heresy for a Christian to esteem the Holy Scriptures so highly as to regard
the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and Greek Textus Receptus (TR)
underlying the King James Version (KJV) to be the very Word of God
without any mistake, without any doubt? William Combs, Professor of New
Testament of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary (DBTS), in his article
Errors in the King James Version? thinks so; he maliciously calls it a new
heresy, a heresy that has now invaded fundamental circles.2
VPI and VPP

Besides the false and malicious accusations by anti-KJVists like
Combs, there appears to be considerable ignorance and misunderstanding as
regards the nature of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages, the
verbally and plenarily inspired Scriptures which God has verbally and
plenarily preserved, namely the Hebrew MT and the Greek TR and the
translations that come from them, especially the KJV. The biblical doctrine
of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) is clearly taught in many an evangelical
Systematic Theology textbook,3 and the term VPI explicitly describes what
biblical inspiration means in the context of the liberal/neo-evangelical versus
fundamentalist battle for the Bible in the last century.4 However, there is
hardly any teaching on Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) in the Systematic
Theology textbooks of the last centurypost-Warfield. Many evangelicals
today do not believe that God has promised to preserve His inspired words.
544
Errors in the King James Version?
VPP to them is not taught in the Bible. The Bible to them was only inerrant
in the past but is no longer inerrant today.5
VPI demands VPP. For what good is it to the Church to have only a
Bible that was infallible and inerrant in the past but no longer infallible and
inerrant today? That is why the Statement of Faith of Far Eastern Bible
College (FEBC) does not stop at VPI but goes on to affirm VPP, We believe
in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal Plenary
Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in the original languages, their
consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the
supreme and final authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Ps
12:6-7; Matt 5:18, 24:35).6
Definitions
What is VPI? Here is my definition:
VPI means the whole of Scripture with all its words to the last jot and tittle is
perfectly inspired by God without any error in the original languages and in all
its prophecies, promises, commandments, doctrines, and truths. These inspired
and inerrant words are not only the words of salvation, but also the words of
history, geography and science. Every book, every chapter, every verse, every
word, every syllable, every letter is infallibly inspired by the Lord Himself to
the last iota.
Now, what is VPP? I define VPP as follows:

VPP means the whole of Scripture with all its words even to the jot and tittle is
perfectly preserved by God without any loss of the original words, prophecies,
promises, commandments, doctrines, and truths, not only in the words of
salvation, but also the words of history, geography and science. Every book,
every chapter, every verse, every word, every syllable, every letter is infallibly
preserved by the Lord Himself to the last iota.7
If the Scriptures are verbally and plenarily inspired and we have them
today, every last word of the Scriptures to the jot and tittle, then where are
they? Combs and DBTS come short here when they identify the infallible
and inerrant text to be only the Autographs which scholarly consensus
admits are no longer existent.8 And if the original text is non-existent, there is
really no way whereby Combs and his colleagues can assuredly ascertain to
what extent the copies or the translations reproduce exactly or accurately the
original text. It is just not possible based on their naturalistic text-critical
presuppositions and hypothesis of a lost or non-existent original text. This is
acknowledged by the leading textual critics themselves.9
545
Identification
In the light of Reformed theology and Reformation history, the FEBC
by the logic of faith identifies where and what is the original text that God
has initially inspired and providentially preserved, infallible and inerrant:
underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of God,
infallible and inerrant.10
As far as English translations of the Bible go, we consider the old to be
better than the new. We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be
the Word of Godthe best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful
translation of the Bible in the English language, and do employ it alone as
our primary scriptural text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of
the English Bible.11
Does the KJV of the Holy Scriptures contain errors then? Combs in his
paper titled, Errors in the King James Version?, argues for errors in the
KJV.12 He also went on to say that all copies and translations, being not the
original manuscripts or autographs, must have mistranslations, miscopying,
or misprinting, however minor, and are not therefore inerrant.13 He
considers a believer who regards the KJV as the very Word of God without
any textual and translational error to be a heretic, and even names D A Waite,
President of the Dean Burgon Society, as one.14 To Combs, the only believers
who are sound and sane, godly and orthodox are those who believe that all
texts and translations today contain errors! It would do well for Combs to
read more Reformed theology and Reformation history before he plays the
pope to denounce as heretics all who believe in the present infallibility and
inerrancy of the inspired Scriptures and identify those inspired Scriptures to
be the providentially preserved Hebrew MT and Greek TR underlying the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV.
Qualifications
Before we discuss further, we need to qualify and explain our terms
especially as regards the KJV as the Word of God, lest we be
misunderstood or misrepresented.
Firstly, when we speak of the Word of God, we are referring to either
one of two things: (1) the Holy Scriptures in the original languages in both
the autographs (originals) and apographs (copies), and/or (2) the Holy
Scriptures in the versions or translations which come in different languages
546
whether ancient or modern. Having said this, we agree with the DBTS
doctrinal statement that translations partake of inspiration in an indirect
fashion only to the extent that they reproduce the text of the original
manuscripts.15
Secondly, it goes without saying that the 100% perfect Word of God
must be the divinely inspired or God-breathed (theopneustos) Hebrew and
Aramaic words of the Old Testament and Greek words of the New
Testament as penned by the specially appointed prophets and apostles
without any mistake or error (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). These same inspired
words in the original languages have been preserved by the special
providence of God through the ages so that in every generation Gods people
might have all of Gods words available and accessible to them for their
spiritual life and growth (Ps 12:6-7; Matt 4:4, 5:18; 2 Tim 3:17). By the logic
of faith, based on the twin doctrines of VPI and VPP, we identify the Hebrew
and Aramaic words of the MT and the Greek words of the TR to be the
infallibly and inerrantly inspired words that God has single-handedly
preserved by providentia extraordinaria (extraordinary or special
providence).16 By the logic of faith, we further consider the divinely inspired
and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words underlying the time-tested
and time-honoured KJV to be completely authentic, authoritative and
definitive.
Thirdly, it must be emphasised that Gods infallible and inerrant nature
demands that His inspired and preserved words be infallible and inerrant as
well. God is perfect and makes no mistakes. The inspired and preserved
words of God likewise must also be perfect and without any mistake. These
infallible and inerrant words are thus strictly the originally inspired and
providentially preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words and not
translated words in other languages. We however agree with Combs when he
says that translations can be said to be inspired in a limited, derivative
sense.17 We also agree that as a whole they cannot be said to be inerrant in
any full sense.18 We also reject the notion that a translation can be superior
to the original language Scriptures. Only the original language Scriptures can
be deemed absolutely and totally infallible and inerrant. This is articulated
by the Dean Burgon Society in their Articles of Faith II.A, which states,
the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the English Bible is a true,
faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved Texts
[Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and Traditional Greek Text underlying the
KJV], which in our time has no equal among all of the other English
547

Translations. The translators did such a fine job in their translation task that we
can without apology hold up the Authorised Version of 1611 and say This is
the Word of God! while at the same time realising that, in some verses, we
must go back to the underlying original language Texts for complete clarity,
and also compare Scripture with Scripture.19
Therefore, although the infallible and inerrant words are strictly the
original language words God has inspired and preserved, the translated
words in other languages may be deemed inspired, preserved,
infallible, and inerrant but only in a derivative and qualified sense,
insofar as they agree with the words in the original languages. So, the
translations do not stand independently but are dependent on the original
language Scriptures, and faithful and accurate translations of them are to be
highly esteemed. As such we do not think it pastorally wise to cast doubt on
the trustworthiness and reliability of faithful and accurate translations like
the KJV as many an agnostic and deistic scholar today are wont to do. The
late Lynn Gray Gordon, a faithful Bible Presbyterian minister and former
General Secretary of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign
Missions (IBPFM), had rightly disclaimed the KJV as an inspired version,
but nonetheless upheld the KJV to be free from error in thought, fact and
doctrine.20
Furthermore, we believe the Reformation versions of the Bible like
Tyndales, Coverdales, the Geneva, and the KJV due to their underlying
texts (Hebrew MT and Greek TR) and word-for-word (formal or verbal
equivalence method) translation are to be regarded as the Word of God,
the best of which is the time-tested and time-honoured KJV. The faithfulness
and accuracy of the Reformation versions notwithstanding, it is important
that the original language Scriptures be the Scriptures that determine the
precise and fulness of meaning of the words of God. As such, we disclaim
the pejorative label KJV Onlyism hurled indiscriminately by anti-VPP/
TR/KJVists at Reformed and Reformation saints who defend the KJV based
on the Traditional and Reformation Texts that God has providentially and
supernaturally preserved as promised in the Sacred Scriptures and affirmed
in our Reformed and Reformation creeds. Let it be known that we see
ourselves rather as KJV Superiority than as KJV Only defenders. Waite,
who holds a ThD degree from Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD from
Purdue University, has written a most timely book that defends the KJV
Superiority position calling for Christians to retain or return to the good old
KJV by arguing for its superiority in four areassuperiority in its (1) texts,
548
(2) translators, (3) technique, and (4) theology.21 We reject the extreme
super superiority of the KJV-Only position propounded by radicals such as
Peter Ruckman.22
Fifthly, the inspired Scriptures that God has preserved must mean that
the sole and supreme authority of Christian faith and practice must rest only
on these very infallible and inerrant Scriptures or Source Texts (i.e. the
autographic text as found in the preserved and uncorrupted apographs)
which we aver are in our hands today. This is apparent in the Chicago
Statement of Biblical Inerrancy:
The authority of Scripture is a key issue for the Christian Church in this and
every age. Those who profess faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior are
called to show the reality of their discipleship by humbly and faithfully
obeying Gods written Word. To stray from Scripture in faith or conduct is
disloyalty to our Master. Recognition of the total truth and trustworthiness of
Holy Scripture is essential to a full grasp and adequate confession of its
authority.
1.
God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy
Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus
Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is Gods
witness to Himself.
2.
Holy Scripture, being Gods own Word, written by men prepared and
superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon
which it touches: it is to be believed, as Gods instruction, in all that it affirms;
obeyed, as Gods command, in all that it requires; embraced, as Gods pledge,
in all that it promises.
3.
The Holy Spirit, Scriptures divine Author, both authenticates it to us by
His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault
in all its teaching, no less in what it states about Gods acts in creation, about
the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than
in its witness to Gods saving grace in individual lives.
5.
The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine
inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of
truth contrary to the Bibles own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the
individual and the Church.23
In light of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, it can be readily

seen that the authority of the Bible is inextricably tied to its inerrancy.
Contemporary evangelical scholars claim the Bible to be inerrant only in the
549
past but no longer inerrant today. They believe that since the inerrant
autographs no longer exist and no two copies of surviving manuscripts are
identical, all extant manuscripts, texts and translations today contain
mistakes and are corrupted to some degree or other, there is simply no such
thing as a Perfect Bible today. It goes without saying that such a view or
teaching undermines the total inerrancy and absolute authority of the Holy
Scriptures, and consequently destroys the very foundations of the Christian
Faith.
FEBC believes that the autographs are not lost; they exist today in the
faithful and trustworthy apographs or copies (and copies of the copies, and
copies of the copies of the copies ) of the autographs that God has
providentially preserved throughout the ages. These autographs are today
found in the uncorrupted apographs which may be deemed the autographic
text (or the authentic text in the WCF) which is the totally infallible and
inerrant text, verbally and plenarily inspired and preserved, and consequently
the Churchs sole and supreme authority of faith and life.
Now, article 10 of the Chicago Statement says,
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies to the autographic text of
Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available
manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations
of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the
original.24
However, the question remains: how do we identify or ascertain the

autographic text? Is it through the supposedly scientific method called
textual criticism, or the theological method which is textual reception
(Acts 2:41, 8:14, 11:1, 17:11; 1 Thess 1:6, 2:13)? The Chicago Statement is
rather ambiguous here. If the Chicago Statement allows for the so-called
scientific method of textual criticism in ascertaining the autographic text,
then it would contradict its very first article which states, We deny that the
Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other
human source. The dependence on the textual critics today and their
rationalistic textual-critical method is one such human source. Textual
critics and textual criticism undermine the very authority of the Holy
Scripture the Chicago Statement seeks to protect. The framers of the Chicago
Statement in their exposition of the Statement unfortunately speak of the
need for textual criticism and by so doing contradict their very own
statement on the inextricable link between biblical inerrancy and biblical
550
authority.25 It appears they have not thought through enough the doctrine of
divine providence and biblical preservation.
As far as Combs is concerned, he does not believe that God has
infallibly or inerrantly preserved His inspired words to the jot and tittle by
special providence as promised in Matthew 5:18 and many other like
passages.26 He said without equivocation, the words of the autographs have
not been inerrantly preserved.27
This paper thus seeks to refute Combss allegation of errors in the Bible
we have in our hands today. It is a defence of the total inerrancy and absolute
authority of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages as faithfully
recognised and received as the inspired words of God by the Reformers and
Reformation saints, namely, the Hebrew MT and the Greek TR which are so
readily available and easily accessible today because of Gods infallible
preservation of His inspired words. This paper is also a defence of the KJV
and any faithful and accurate version/translation in whatever language that is
based on and accurately translated from those original language texts which
we deem by the logic of faith to be the autographic Old Testament and New
Testament texts.28
Now, let us deal with the three types of errors Combs has found in
the KJV: (1) textual errors, (2) translation errors, and (3) transmission errors.
Textual Errors?
Combs begins by defining what he means by textual errors. He says,
By textual errors I mean those where the reading found in the translation is
not in agreement with that of the autographs.29 Now this definition by itself
is quite inane because it begs the question, Where are the autographs?
Combs believes that the autographs are not available, the original scrolls
and codices have long since perished.30 Now without the autographs, the
original scrolls, how is Combs going to identify textual errors in the KJV, or
for that matter any other version? How does he know whether a textual error
is truly a textual error if he does not know what the original text is in the first
place? But Combs has what he thinks passes for an answer; he assumes that
most reasonable people would be willing to concede that where all extant
manuscripts are in agreement, we can safely conclude that we do have the
text of the autographs.31 Combs went on to say, Based on this criterion, the
KJV does contain indisputable [textual] errors, since it contains readings
that have no basis in any manuscript.32 But the question remains: How does
he know that all extant manuscripts are in agreement when he himself says
551
that in the over 5,000 manuscripts no two are alike?33 Furthermore, not all
manuscripts have been studied and there are manuscripts still uncovered or
yet to be discovered. Combss criterion, based on his own reasoning without
any biblical premise, is thus disputable.
Isaiah 13:15
Nonetheless, Combs tries to prove his point by citing Isaiah 13:15 as an
example of a textual error. In light of what he is trying to prove, Isaiah 13:15
is a strange example indeed. This is because there are no textual errors in
Isaiah 13:15 to begin with. All manuscripts agree including those who affirm
the inerrancy of Hebrew text underlying the KJV. The critical Biblia
Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the traditional MT of Ben Chayyim read the
same as regards the Hebrew word in contention which is saphah. The KJV
translates the word saphah as joined which Combs says is a textual
error. According to Combs, There is no support for this reading in any
Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition.34 Now
Combs is not making sense here, for the question here has nothing to do with
the text but the translation. Combs assumes that the KJV translators mistook
the word saphah for saphah which is not found in any manuscript since they
translated the word as join (saphah) instead of capture (saphah), and so
to Combs an indisputable error in the KJV.
Based on Combss definition of an indisputable error, it is clear that
there is no textual error here, and there is no translation error here either. The
autographic text indeed reads saphah, and saphah means to sweep,
snatch away, catch up.35 Saphah also has the sense of joining together. R
D Patterson in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament commented,
The basic image of the root seems to be that of sweepingboth the process
of heaping things together and of sweeping them away. He went on to add
that The root is usually used in a hostile sense, particularly in contexts of
judgment.36 Saphah is found in precisely such a context of judgement in
Isaiah 13:15b, every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
As such, the rendering joined unto them certainly fits the meaning of the
word saphah, for it has the connotation of putting things together for the
purpose of judgement. Nineteenth century Presbyterian theologian Albert
Barnes for example certainly understood it this way for he commented,
Every one that is joined unto them. Their allies and friends. There shall be a
vast, indiscriminate slaughter of all that are found in the city, and of those that
attempt to flee from it. Lowth renders this, And all that are collected in a
552

body; but the true sense is given in our translation. The Chaldee renders it,
And every one who enters into fortified cities shall be slain with the sword.37
John Calvin likewise commented,

the verb saphah signifies likewise to add, that it denotes companies of
soldiers, as in taking a city the soldiers are collected together in the form of a
wedge, to ward off the attacks of the enemy. But it will perhaps be thought
better to understand by it the confederates or allies who were joined to
Babylon, and might be said to be united in the same body, in order to show
more fully the shocking nature of this calamity.38
Harvard scholar Edward F Hills wisely advised,

We must be very cautious therefore about finding errors in the text of the King
James Version, and the same holds true also in the realm of translation.
Whenever the renderings of the King James Version are called in question, it is
usually the accuser that finds himself in the wrong.39
Revelation 17:8
Combs then went on to deal with textual errors in the TR. He brought
up two examples from the Book of Revelation, namely, 17:8 and 16:5 in that
order. For Revelation 17:8, he says, No manuscript reads, and yet is; all
have and shall come.40 Combs overstates for it is not true that no
manuscript reads and yet is. Paradoxically, Combs himself contradicts
this by admitting there is at least one manuscript (Codex 1r)the actual
manuscript Erasmus usedthough the actual text was embedded in the
commentary of Andreas of Caesarea, somewhat like the Study Bibles we
have today. It is significant to note that Erasmus used that manuscript
because he saw it as a very old manuscript possibly from the time of the
Apostles for the manuscript bore the name of Hippolytus of Rome (AD 200250)41 who was a disciple of Irenaeus. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp
and Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. In light of Gods special
providence, there could be an apostolic tradition here that has preserved the
autographic text of Revelation, the Spirit guiding Erasmus to the correct
text.42
Combs says that it is an indisputable error in the KJV if all extant
manuscripts are in agreement. Well, all extant manuscripts are not in
agreement here. There are at least four variant readings: (1) kai parestai, (2)
kai parestin, (3) kai palin pareste, and (4) kaiper estin.43 Combs who favours
the Critical Text prefers kai parestai, while those who favour the TR will go
with kaiper estin which is the reading found consistently not only in the
553
Greek text of Erasmus, but also Stephenus, Beza, Elzevir, and Scrivener.
Interestingly, the two other variants namely parestin and paresteboth the
present tense of pareimiare closer to the reading of the TR than the
Critical Text. There is thus more than meets the eye, and Combs assumes too
much to conclude that Revelation 17:8 contains an indisputable error.
Even Hills whom Combs cites was not very sure himself that it is a
mistake.44 If it was indeed an indisputable error as Combs thinks, that kai
parestai was mistaken for kaiper estin in the first edition of Erasmuss Greek
Text, then surely it would have been corrected in the second, but it is
interesting to note that all subsequent editions of Erasmus read the same as
either kai per estin (with the space between kai and per) or kaiper estin
(without the space), both meaning the same. It looks like Combs is faulting
the TR for a textual error which was not there in the first place, for the
reading of Codex 1r was not kai parestai, but kai per estin or kaiper estin.45
Neither should the reading of kaiper as one word (without the space) be seen
as an error for in classical Greek literature it often appears as one word,
especially in Greek Tragedy.46
Hoskier after his collection and collation of over 200 manuscripts for
the Book of Revelation had this to say about Erasmuss Text, I may state
that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing
MSS [manuscripts] in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded
better.47 I agree with this observation of Dean Burgon Society scholar Jack
Moorman, Here then is a powerful example of Gods guiding providence in
preserving the text of Revelation.48 In light of Gods special providential
preservation of His inspired words, we reject Combs claim that Revelation
17:8 as found in the TR is a textual error.
Revelation 16:5
Combs says there is an indisputable error in Revelation 16:5 where
the KJV reads, And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous,
O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.
He says the words shalt be, should read holy one. He says there is no
evidence whatsoever for the reading shalt be which translates accurately
the Greek esomenos. According to Combs the right word should be hosios
(holy one) and not esomenos.49
It ought to be noted that Beza said he was certain about the reading
esomenos in Revelation 16:5 in light of the internal evidences and the
ancient manuscript he had in his possession. To be sure, Beza was not a
554
Bible corrector but a Bible believer and defender of the Faith. As such, he
would have known only too well the warning of Revelation 22:18-19 against
adding to or subtracting from the Holy Scriptures. There must have been
compelling reasons for him, with a high view of Scripture, to restore to the
Holy Scriptures the true reading which his predecessors had apparently
overlooked. He gave his reasons as follows,
And shall be: The usual publication is holy one, which shows a division,
contrary to the whole phrase which is foolish, distorting what is put forth in
scripture. The Vulgate, however, whether it is articulately correct or not, is not
proper in making the change to holy, since a section (of the text) has worn
away the part after and, which would be absolutely necessary in connecting
righteous and holy one. But with John there remains a completeness where
the name of Jehovah (the Lord) is used, just as we have said before, 1:4; he
always uses the three closely together, therefore it is certainly and shall be,
for why would he pass over it in this place? And so without doubting the
genuine writing in this ancient manuscript, I faithfully restored in the good
book what was certainly there, shall be.50
Besides the ancient Greek manuscript that Beza had, it ought to be

noted that Beatus of Liebana in the eighth century, in his compilation of
commentaries on the Book of Revelation has the Latin phrase, qui fuisti et
futures es, for Revelation 16:5 which was found in the commentary of
Tyconius which goes back to the fourth century.51 It is entirely possible that
there were either early Greek manuscripts or Old Latin versions as early as
the fourth century which contained the reading esomenos.
It is also significant to note that the reading hosios preferred by Combs
is a harder reading. Robert L Thomas, Professor of New Testament at The
Masters Seminary, citing Swete commented, Taking hosios as parallel with
dikaios creates an intolerable harshness, however, and taking the adjective as
a predicate adjective with ho on and ho en breaks the pattern of the
Apocalypse in not assigning the expression a predicate nominative or
adjective.52 We note that the reading ho esomenos, the future participle of
eimi in its masculine, singular, nominative form with the definite article fits
well the pattern of the Apocalypse and functions well as an adjectival
participle to describe dikaiosthe Righteous One who shall soon come to
judge a most wicked world.
Although it is admitted that ho esomenos is not the reading found in the
Majority Text, we are wont to agree with Hills that such minority readings
seem to have been placed in the Greek TR by the direction of Gods special
555
providence and therefore are to be retained.53 It is also admitted that the

reading of ho hosios in Stephens edition of the TR differs from Bezas ho
esomenos. So what do we do with the rare occasions when the several
editions of the TR differ from one another? Hills replied,
The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith.
Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any
other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval,
namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely the Greek text underlying
the King James Version.54
The reading of Revelation 16:5 in the Greek Text underlying the KJV is
thus not proven as an indisputable error as Combs would have us think.
There are enough reasons for us to receive it as an authentic reading in the
light of Gods special providence as seen in both the internal and external
evidences.55
Romans 7:6
Combs says another indisputable error is found in Romans 7:6. This
has to do with the reading apothanontos (genitive singular) vis--vis
apothonontes (nominative plural). Stephens TR reads apothanonthes
modifying katergethemen (we are delivered), whereas Bezas and
Scriveners read apothanontos modifying apo tou nomou (from the law),
which is the reading underlying the KJV. It must be said that the King James
translators in their translating work checked with other editions of the TR,
and knew of other readings in that tradition. It is clear that they did not
always follow Beza because as Scrivener noted they did depart from Beza on
some occasions because they were intent on making the best choice.56 In this
case, they chose to follow Beza for reasons not made known to us. We
unfortunately do not know nor have many of the manuscripts used by them.
It is quite possible they had Greek manuscripts and/or ancient versions which
supported Bezas reading. They probably took into account the context of
Romans 7 which says that law as our husband has died so that we might be
married to another (Rom 7:1-4).57 The law and its curse have died so that we
might be married to Christ for life. Calvin understood verse 6 thusly, The
law, as far as we are concerned is abrogated, so that we are not oppressed
with its intolerable burden, and do not find its inexorable rigour
overwhelming us with its curse.58
Theologically speaking, the reading apothanontos is hardly an
indisputable error. It is an indisputable error only to Combs because of his
556
text-critical presuppositions, but if one adopts a theological sola fide

approach to the text based upon the biblical doctrine of VPP and special
providence, there is no reason why we cannot receive the reading underlying
the KJV as authentic.
Acts 9:6
The final example of an indisputable error in the Greek text
underlying the KJV that Combs brought up is found in Acts 9:6. He says that
the words, And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have
me to do? And the Lord said unto him, are not found in any Greek
manuscript, and therefore should not be in the Bible.59 Combs claims that
Erasmus himself said he inserted that reading on the basis of Acts 26:14. But
Acts 26:14 hardly reads the same as Acts 9:6. It is unlikely that there was any
conjectural harmonisation on the part of Erasmus here considering the
internal evidence. As for external evidences, Erasmuss reading finds support
in Greek Codex 221c which dates back to the 10th century and the Greek/
Latin Codex Ottobonianus 629 which is 14th century. The reading is also
found in the Old Latin manuscripts (ar, c, h, l, p, ph, t) which date back to the
second century, and in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts which date back to the
fourth and fifth centuries. It is also found in the Old Syriac, Coptic,
Georgian, Slavonic and Ethiopic versions, and in the fourth century writings
of Church Fathers like Lucifer of Cagliari (370), Ephraem (373) and
Ambrose (397).60 It is possible that these ancient versions were translated
from Greek manuscripts which had those words. Many Greek manuscripts
have yet to be studied and their contents revealed, and whether those will be
studied and revealed without bias by the pro-Alexandrian critical scholars
remains to be seen. We do not hold our breath.
As far as we are concerned, guided by a biblically-based worldview, we
agree with Harvard theologian and textual scholar E F Hills who was astute
to observe that the relatively few Latin Vulgate readings
which though not part of the Traditional Greek text, seem to have been placed
in the Textus Receptus by the direction of Gods special providence and
therefore are to be retained. The reader will note that these Latin Vulgate
readings are also found in other ancient witnesses, namely, old Greek
manuscripts, versions, and Fathers.61
Therefore, our confidence in the TR lies not in the work of the textual
critics but in the special providence of God who had throughout the ages
kept His inspired words pure in the Byzantine or Majority manuscripts, and
557
then in the Printed Texts of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation which
have been received by the faithful church to be the infallible and inerrant,
authentic and authoritative words of God to this day.
Translation Errors?
Combs proceeded next to criticise the KJV for its translation errors. He
pointed out three examples which to him are clear errors, which no amount
of finessing can mitigate.62 Let us now examine these errors so called.
Hebrews 10:23
Combs says the most indisputable translation error in the KJV is
found in Hebrews 10:23 where the word faith should actually be hope.63
He points out the actual Greek word is elpis (i.e. hope) and not pistis (i.e.
faith). This is not denied by KJV defenders. The inspired and preserved,
infallible and inerrant word is the Greek elpis which occurs a total of 54
times in the New Testament and is translated as hope in the KJV on 53
occasions (not 52 as Combs says), and once as faith in Hebrews 10:23.
The old translations like Wycliffe, Bishop, Geneva, and Tyndale render it as
hope. In view of this, Combs concludes that the KJV translators made a
mistake here but says he does not know why the KJV translators failed to
notice the error.
In response, let me raise a couple of questions: (1) Is it possible that
Combs himself due to his prejudice against the KJV is mistaken (as he is
with regard to the number of times elpis is found in the New Testament), and
(2) can faith be an acceptable translation of elpis? Both questions can be
answered in the affirmative.
Instead of looking at it as a translation error, it is possible that the KJV
translators purposely departed from the usual word hope and translated it
as faith because they saw in faith a better term than hope in the
context of Hebrews 10:23. All grammarians know that the meaning of a
word is determined by how it is used in its context. Now, in Hebrews 10:23,
the genitive elpidos modifies homologian (confession or profession). I
submit that it is precisely because of the noun homologian that the KJV
translators chose to render elpidos as faith rather than hope for we do
not normally confess or profess hope, but faith (Rom 10:9-10; 1 Tim 6:12).
Furthermore, hope itself might not include faith, but faith certainly
encompasses hope for Hebrews 11:1 says, Now faith is the substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Contextually, faith in the
558
Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 10:12-21) and His promises (Heb 10:23) is what
gives us the sure and steadfast hope of salvation. The Puritan writer,
Matthew Poole, expressed this thought well when he commented,
The profession of our faith; an outward exhibition to the world both in word
and deed, as we have it sincerely in our hearts, solemnly owning it in the
ordinances of God in his church, of the hope we have in Christ our High
Priest, and of all that he hath purchased for us, and promised to perform in us
and to us, chap. iii. 1, 6; iv. 14; vi.11; Rom. x. 9, 10; 1 Pet. i. 3, 21.64
Although it may be legitimate to render elpis as faith in Hebrews

10:23, does the word itself etymologically allow for it? I believe it does.
Consider the verb form of elpis which is elpizo which has been rendered by
the KJV translators as trust 18 times (Matt 12:21; Luke 24:21; John 5:45;
Rom 15:12, 24; 1 Cor 16:7; 2 Cor 1:10, 13, 5:11, 13:6; Phil 2:19; 1 Tim 4:10,
5:5, 6:17; Phlm 22; 1 Pet 3:5; 2 John 12; 3 John 14), and hope 13 times
(Luke 6:34, 23:8; Acts 24:26, 26:7; Rom 8:24, 25; 1 Cor 13:7, 15:19; 2 Cor
8:5; Phil 2:23; 1 Tim 3:14; Heb 11:1; 1 Pet 1:13). As can be seen, elpizo is
not only rendered I hope, but also I trust which certainly has the sense of
faith. According to Spiros Zodhiates, a Greek scholar who is Greek himself,
Elpis may be defined as desire for future good, accompanied by faith in its
realization.65 It is thus entirely legitimate for elpis in Hebrews 10:23 by
virtue of the verbal noun homologian to which it is connected to be
understood precisely as trust or faitha trust or faith which is full of hope
since it is based solely on the Lord Jesus Christ and His promises.66 As such,
it is hardly a most indisputable translation error as Combs would like us to
think.
Acts 19:37
Combs cites Acts 19:37 as another problem. He says that the word
translated robbers of churches in the KJV is simply an erroneous
translation,67 it should be robbers of temples. There is no dispute that the
inspired and preserved word is hierosulos and found not only in the Greek
TR but also all other manuscripts. It is also without dispute that hierosulos
literally means a temple robber. It is certainly not erroneous to translate
hierosulous in Acts 19:37 as robbers of temples, but is it indisputably
erroneous to translate it as robbers of churches taking into consideration
that temples and churches may be understood synonymously as referring
to sacred places of worship?
559
Let us first of all look at how the word hierosulos is used in ancient
Greek literature. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says that
the word has been used of (1) the removal of gold vessels from the
Jerusalem temple by Lysimachus, 2 Macc. 4:42, (2) anyone who steals
sacred books or funds from the Jews, (3) those who destroyed the golden
eagle above the temple gate, and together with (4) those who are thieves,
kidnappers, adulterers and murderers.68 This tells us that the word has a
wider sense than just a robber of pagan temples.
Let us now look at how the Reformation translations rendered this
verse. The Wycliffe Bible has it as for ye han brouyt these men, nethir
sacrilegeris, nethir blasfemynge youre goddesse; the Geneva has, For yee
haue brought hither these men, which haue neither committed sacrilege,
neither doe blaspheme your goddesse; and Tyndales Bible reads, For ye
have brought hyther these me whiche are nether robbers of churches nor yet
despisers of youre goddes. The KJV agrees with Tyndales. It is significant
to note that whereas the KJV translators followed Tyndale as regards
robbers of churches, they did not follow likewise for despisers of youre
goddes but instead rendered blasphemountas ten thean humon more
literally as blasphemers of your goddess following the Wycliffe and
Geneva Bibles. I believe this shows that the KJV translators (1) were
mindful of the Greek text, (2) consulted previous translations, and (3) did not
follow Tyndale slavishly.
Why then did the KJV translators render hierosulous as robbers of
churches and not robbers of temples? It is possible that the KJV
translators in their considered opinion or for some exegetical reason saw
hierosulous not just in the narrow sense of pagan temples but also other
religious places of worship which include churches. The word can also refer
to any sacrilegious act or person (so Wycliffe and Geneva). Insofar as Acts
19:37 is concerned,
the town clerk takes the apostles under his protection. They are neither
hierosuloi nor do they blaspheme Artemis. Here the term is general. They are
not offenders against religion, and have not committed sacrilege.69
Therefore, hierosulos is not as narrow a term as Combs thinks, and can

thus be translated in a number of ways, a sacrilegious person, a robber of
temples, or a robber of churches. The meaning that Acts 19:37 is trying to
convey is that Paul was not a sacrilegious person for he had neither
desecrated nor robbed from sacred places be they temples or churches.70
560
Some might consider robbers of temples to be a better translation than

robbers of churches, but the latter is hardly erroneous.71
The KJV translators would only be in error if they had translated
hierosulous in Acts 19:37 as robbers of banks or bank robbers. Did they
even come close? God forbid!
Acts 12:4
Combs went on to cite what he considers another clear example of a
translation error in the KJV, this time in Acts 12:4. He criticises the KJV for
translating pascha as Easter. According to Combs, what happened in Acts
12 has nothing to do with Easter, the Christian celebration of Christs
resurrection, but a pagan festival in honour of Esotre, the goddess of
spring.72
However, there are others who think otherwise. Nick Sayers, for
instance, explains,
In most languages the word for Easter is exactly the same as the word for
Passover, so the relationship between the feast of Passover, and the death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, is directly linked. A few examples are; Latin
Pascha, French Pques, Italian Pasqua, and Dutch Pasen. All these words
mean both Easter and Passover, only the context formulates the difference.
With the exception of English and German, all other European languages do
not have separate words for Easter and Passover, but simply use a single term
derived from Pesach, the Hebrew word for Passover.
In one way, this is an advantage to the believer, who immediately associates
Jesus Christ as the Passover Lamb. Whether reading the New or Old
Testaments, the association between Christ and the Passover is clearly seen.
This was also the case in the original Greek language which uses the Greek
word Pascha for both Passover and the resurrection of Christ. This has been
the same for 2000 years in the Greek. Even if you look up a modern Greek
dictionary it will tell you that Pascha means both Easter and Passover.
Tyndale was responsible for the insertion of both Easter and Passover in the
English Bible. In his 1525 New Testament, Tyndale used the English word
Easter to translate the Greek word Pascha. Pascha, being formerly
transliterated in Wycliffes version, was for the first time in a Bible translation,
translated into a unique English word.
Until 1611, English-speaking people had always associated the word Easter
with the celebration of Passover and the prophetic implications which
561

occurred at Christs death and resurrection. They saw that the Old Testament
shadow was the Passover and that the New Testament fulfilment was Christs
death, burial, and resurrection called Easter. The King James Bible finalised
86 years of change in the use of Easter and Passover. After seeing what
Tyndale had begun and the refining of the word Easter within almost a century
of various translation attempts, the KJV translators caused the semantic range
of Easter to be translated only once as Easter in Acts 12:4. This was because
in every instance in the New Testament except Acts 12:4, the Greek word
Pascha represented the pre-resurrection Passover, i.e. the Jewish celebration.
In other words Christ had not yet died as the Passover lamb for the whole
world. But in Acts 12:4 it is a post-resurrection Passover, where Christ had
died and was risen. Since the time of the King James Version until the early
twentieth century, the term Easter was commonly identified by believers solely
as the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Before Tyndale, Easter
was the chief word used for the Jewish Passover by Christians. This is because
Easter and Passover are the same season, Jews celebrating the shadow, and
Christians celebrating the fulfilment. The word Easter has illustrated to the
Englishman much more than simply the Passover celebration, but through
Tyndales addition of Easter, construction of the word Passover, and later with
the King James translators correctly re-applying Easter only once in Acts
12:4, it gives significant insight into revealing the fulfilment of the Passover in
Christ. It exalts Jesus Christs death and resurrection above all.
Luthers translation was a strong influence on Tyndales New Testament.

Because of persecution in Catholic England, Tyndale left England for
Germany. It is strongly believed that he met with Luther in Germany in 1525,
as many of Tyndales beliefs were, in essence, Lutheran. By the end of the
year, Tyndale had printed the New Testament in English. It is likely that
Tyndales use of Easter in his New Testament is also indebted to his
knowledge of Luthers German translation, which uses Oster (pronounced
Ouster) in the same way as Tyndale uses Easter. Because the English Anglo
Saxon language originally derived from the Germanic when the Angles,
Saxons, and Jutes came to England in the 5th and 6th centuries, there are many
similarities between German and English. Many English writers have referred
to the German language as the Mother Tongue! The English word Easter is of
German/Saxon origin and not Babylonian as Alexander Hislop falsely
claimed, . The German equivalent is Oster. Oster (Ostern being the modern
day correspondent) is related to Ost which means the rising of the sun, or
simply in English, east. Oster comes from the old Teutonic form of
auferstehen/auferstehung, which means resurrection, which in the older
Teutonic form comes from two words, ester meaning first, and stehen meaning
to stand. These two words combine to form erstehen which is an old German
562

form of auferstehen, the modern day German word for resurrection. The
English Easter and German Oster go hand in hand.
Tyndale with his expertise in the German language knew of the Easter-Oster
association. Luther obviously defined Oster both as a synonym for the Jewish
Passover and a phrase used for the resurrection of Christ.
The etymology of Easter is easily traced to the German word for resurrection,
not to some fabricated pagan goddess, for which there is not a crumb of
evidence.73
Since there is no true English equivalent for the term pascha,74 I

consider both Passover and Easter to be equally acceptable translations,
taking into consideration how both terms have developed through time.
Whichever term is used, it is for the exegete to explain the anachronism and
the meaning of the term within the etymological, historical, and theological
contexts of the divinely inspired and preserved word in the original
language.
I echo the sentiments of Sayers against those who spare no effort to
undermine the faithfulness and accuracy of the KJV,
What a shame that believers devote so much time arguing against Easter,
something that Christ himself instituted, or waste so much time attacking the
KJV Bible.
It also seems strange if not blasphemous that we as Bible-believing Christians
could think that the King James Version translators would insert the name of a
pagan deity in place of the word Pascha.
To think that the worlds most famous translation could get it so wrong here is
sheer ignorance on our behalf. To believe that Tyndale, Cranmer, Martin
Luther, Coverdale, Matthews, the translators of the Great Bible, and the
Bishops Bible, the King James Bible, were referring to a pagan god of the
spring called Ishtar is so absurd that it becomes humorous when examined.75
Transmission Errors?
In this section, Combs took pains to highlight a number of well-known
printing errors in various editions of the KJV over the years.76 KJVSuperiority defenders do not deny that there were/are printing errors in the
KJV. These printing errors do not impinge upon the infallibility and
inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures since the infallibility and inerrancy of the
Holy Scriptures are strictly tied to their inspiration (VPI) and preservation
(VPP) by God in the original languages, and we identify these original
563
language Scriptures to be the Hebrew MT and the Greek TR of the Great

Protestant Reformation.
KJV critics often ridicule the KJV by calling it the Adulterers Bible
and Murderers Bible because of printing mistakes in the 1631 edition
which omitted the word not from the commandment, Thou shalt not
commit adultery (Exod 20:14), and the 1795 edition which read Let the
children first be killed instead of Let the children first be filled (Mark
7:27). I am glad Combs brought this up because it illustrates how the Bible is
still infallible and inerrant despite the printing or copying mistakes. Man
makes mistakes but not God, and He has infallibly preserved His inspired
words to the jot and tittle by His singular care and providence (Matt 5:18,
WCF 1:8). It is only when we have a Perfect Standarda presently infallible
and inerrant Bible in the original languagesthat such human mistakes are
easily and quickly detected and corrected so that today the KJV is no longer
an adulterous or murderous Bible. Since 1611, other necessary
corrections have been made to the KJV, and most were done by 1769. It goes
without saying that with new editions, new mistakes could appear, and
corrections would have to be made again. For instance, in the first printing of
The Defined King James Bible in 1998, the word bondwoman was
erroneously printed as bondman (Gal 4:23, 30, 31).77 This of course has
been corrected in subsequent printings.
Now, although Combs is quick to see printing errors in the KJV and is
able to correct them to make them right, he is clueless about identifying the
words God has originally inspired since he avers that God did nothing
miraculous in preserving His inspired words.78 Combs went on to say that
we presently possess over 5,000 copies, or partial copies, of the Greek NT,
and no two of these manuscripts agree exactly.79 Historically, the saints
prior to the text-critical era never thought of the Scriptures in such a way.
They never thought of the original language Scriptures that they had in their
hands, namely the apographs, as imperfect, fallible or errant.80 That would be
fatal to their cause, for it would have destroyed the very foundational
doctrine of Sola Scriptura, not to mention Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus
Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria. The view that only the autographs are
infallible and inerrant and nothing else is a new doctrine conceived by 19th
century Protestant scholastics of whom B B Warfield was chief.81
The Reformed pastors and scholars in Reformation and PostReformation days had always believed and affirmed the infallibility and
inerrancy of the autographs as well as the apographs, the very Scriptures they
564
had in their possession which be the sole and supreme authority of their faith
and practice as opposed to the Roman Catholic view of papal infallibility and
supremacy.82 Francis Turretin, 17th century Professor of Theology in Geneva,
made it very clear what the Reformation saints believed to be the inspired
Scriptures,
By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of
Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist.
We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the
word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.83
Historical theologian Richard A Muller of Calvin Theological

Seminary wrote in no uncertain terms,
The Protestant scholastics do not press the point by their nineteenth-century
followers that the infallibility of Scripture and the freedom of Scripture from
error reside absolutely in the autographa and only in a derivative sense in the
apographa; rather, the scholastics argue positively that the apographa
preserve intact the true words of the prophets and the apostles and that the
God-breathed (theopneustos, q.v.) character of Scripture is manifest in the
apographa as well as in the autographa.84
By the same doctrine and spirit, we oppose the modern assault on the
present infallibility and inerrancy of Scriptures by the text-critics and their
rationalistic rules of textual criticism. Warfields appeal to textual criticism
and textual critical scholarship is a return to the Romish days and ways that
only the ecclesiastics and scholars are qualified to determine what is and
what is not Gods word. The denial of the present infallibility and inerrancy
of the Holy Scriptures effectively destroys the doctrine of Sola Scriptura and
Biblical authority, and makes the text-critical college the authority over the
inspired Scriptures God has single-handedly and supernaturally preserved to
the jot and tittle (providentia extraordinaria). We deny that the textual critics
and their man-made rules of criticism have any authority over the Holy
Scriptures God has verbally inspired and verbally preserved.
An Errant Scripture Cannot Be Authoritative

Combs not only maliciously labels as heretics all who believe in the
present infallibility and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures and identify the
inspired and preserved Scriptures to be precisely the Hebrew MT and Greek
TR on which the Reformation Biblethe KJVis based, he went on to
advocate that there is nothing wrong with believing that the Bible is no
565
longer totally infallible and inerrant. He says, There is nothing deceptive or

hypocritical about referring to our Bibles as authoritative Scripture, even
though they are not absolutely perfect.85 Combss thesis is utterly deadly.
Let me say that it is the height of deception and hypocrisy to claim that the
Bible is absolutely authoritative without it being totally infallible and
inerrant.
The battle for the Bible today is the battle for its present infallibility
and inerrancy and absolute authority. Without the Lord infallibly preserving
His inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words by special providence to the
last jot and tittle, the Reformation, Evangelical and Fundamentalist claim of
Biblical infallibility, inerrancy and authority is empty and in vain. If the
foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps 11:3). But glory
be to God who has magnified His Word above all His name (Ps 138:2);
The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul (Ps 19:7); The Word
of our God shall stand forever (Isa 40:8); Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt
5:18).
We cannot and dare not deny nor be uncertain about the Bible nor the
Christian Faith by being agnostic about the present perfection of the Holy
Scriptures which be our sole, supreme and final authority of faith and
practice. If we do, how then can we preach with authority, Thus saith the
Lord, It is written?
There is a vital need today to re-live and recapture the faith of the
Reformers and the spirit of the Reformation in this postmodern, emergent
and neo-deistic church age. Unless and until we are sure and certain about
the very Foundations of our Faiththe Living Word and the Written Words
of God, we have no apologia against the constant attacks on the Historic
Christian Faith by the likes of Dan Brown, Bart Ehrman, Brian McLaren,
and a host of neo-orthodox, neo-evangelical, neo-fundamental scholars
today. Worst of all, we will have no gospel to preach. The bright side is, the
victory is already won, as Calvin was wont to say, What shall we then say
to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (Rom 8:31); For
we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor 13:8).
Notes
Westminster Larger Catechism, Q 157.
William W Combs, Errors in the King James Version?, Detroit Baptist Seminary
Journal (1999): 162.
1
2
566

3
E.g. J O Buswell, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids:
Zondevan, 1962), 1:185-8; Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody,
1989), 162-6; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 7376. Charles Ryrie explains well the process by which the term VPI came to be in Basic
Theology (Wheaton: Victor, 1986), 67.
4
See Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), and
George M Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans,
1987).
5
According to Daniel B Wallace, in his article on Inspiration, Preservation, and New
Testament Textual Criticism, Grace Theological Journal 12 (1991): 43, the doctrine of the
preservation has neither ancient historical roots, nor any direct biblical basis.
6
Constitution of the Far Eastern Bible College, Article 4.2.1.
7
Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, Theology for Every Christian (Singapore: Far
Eastern Bible College, 2007), 77-8. This is a restatement and reaffirmation of the
Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 1 and paragraph 8 which states, The Old
Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek , being immediately inspired by
God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore
authentical.
8
Combs agrees that the autographs are not available, Errors in the King James
Version?, 154.
9
See E Jay Epp, The Multivalence of the Term Original Text in New Testament
Textual Criticism, Harvard Theological Review 92 (1999): 245-81.
10
Constitution of the Far Eastern Bible College, Article 4.2.1.1. For articles on how we
arrive at this conclusion, see Jeffrey Khoo, A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The Burning Bush
(January 2003): 1-15; Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa? The Burning Bush (January
2005): 3-19; and Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations, The Burning Bush (January
2007): 4-24.
11
Ibid., Article 4.2.1.2.
12
William W Combs, Errors in the King James Version?, Detroit Baptist Seminary
Journal 4 (1999): 151-64.
13
Ibid., 151.
14
Combs, Errors in the King James Version?, 151, 162. He wrote these
condemnatory words, My only reason for pointing out these particular errors in the KJV is
to disprove this new heresy on a perfect, inerrant translation. He maliciously accuses D A
Waite and the Dean Burgon Society for this new heresy. It is clear that D A Waite, the
President of the Dean Burgon Society and those connected to that Society do not espouse the
heretical views of certain fundamentalists who believe the KJV to be doubly inspired,
advanced revelation, and superior to the original language texts.
15
Ibid.
16
A distinction can be made between (1) providentia ordinaria, ordinary or
general providence, by means of which God conserves, supports, and governs all things
through the instrumentality of secondary causes in accord with the laws of nature; and (2)
providentia extraordinaria, extraordinary or special providence, according to which God
performs in his wisdom special acts or miracles (miracula, q.v.) that lie beyond the normal
possibilities inherent in secondary causality and that can, therefore, be termed either supra
causas, beyond or above causes, or contra causas, against or over against causes.
Providentia ordinaria corresponds with Gods ordained power (potentia ordinata, q.v.) and
567

providentia extraordinaria with Gods absolute power (potentia absoluta, q.v.). Dictionary
of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s.v. providentia, by Richard A Muller.
17
Ibid., 152-3.
18
Ibid., 153.
19
Dean Burgon Society, Articles of Faith, Operation, and Organization, http://
www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS_Society/articles.htm, accessed on February 11, 2009.
Emphasis mine.
20
Lynn Gray Gordon, The Worlds Greatest Truths (Singapore: Far Eastern Bible
College, 1999, 26.
21
D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 3rd rev ed (Collingswood: Bible For
Today, 2006), xi.
22
Ruckman says, the King James Authorized Version of the Bible is superior to any
set of Greek or Hebrew manuscripts, including the so-called originals. Peter Ruckman,
The Super Superiority of the King James Bible, Bible Believers Bulletin 32 (January
2008): 2.
23
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), http://en.wikisource.org/
wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy, accessed on February 27, 2009.
24
Ibid.
25
According to them, Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of
Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents
was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips
that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. See Chicago Statement
of Biblical Inerrancy with Exposition, in http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html,
accessed on April 11, 2009.
26
See George Skariah, The Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of the Holy
Scriptures, ThD dissertation, Far Eastern Bible College, 2005.
27
William W Combs, The Preservation of Scripture, Detroit Baptist Seminary
Journal 5 (2000): 37.
28
For an exposition of the Biblical doctrine of the verbal and plenary preservation of
the Holy Scriptures, see Tow and Khoo, Theology for Every Christian, 77-118 and Jeffrey
Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of
Providential Preservation (Singapore: FEBC Press, 2001). See also Dennis Kwok and the
Faculty of the Far Eastern Bible College, VPP of the Bible: A Course on the Doctrine of
Verbal Plenary Preservation, ed H D Williams (Cleveland: Old Paths Publications, 2008)
which is freely downloadable from http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/
dbs_course_on_vpp.pdf.
29
Combs, Errors in the King James Version?, 154.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
34
Ibid., 155.
35
BDB, s.v. sapah, 705.
36
TWOT, s.v. sapa, by R D Patterson.
37
Albert Barnes, Notes on the Old Testament, Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950
reprint), 1:255. John D W Watts commented, Each [joined] to his own people presumes a
population that has migrated to the great cities in search of jobs or buyers for goods or as
568

mercenaries. They return to their villages in times of trouble. Isaiah 1-33, Word Biblical
Commentary (Waco: Word Books, 1985), 24:198.
38
John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1981 reprint), 1:424.
39
Edward F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines: Christian Research Press,
1977), 83.
40
41
Henk Jan De Jonge, Novum Testamentum A Nobis Versum: The Essence of
Erasmus Edition of the New Testament, Journal of Theological Studies NS 35 (1984): 409.
42
Combs called Erasmus a Roman Catholic in an attempt to cast doubt on his
credibility. Well, Luther was a Catholic too, but opposed to the false teachings of Rome.
Erasmus was opposed to Rome too, and it is said of both of them in their Reformation work,
Erasmus laid the egg , but Luther hatched it. See S M Houghton, Sketches from Church
History (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1980), 78.
43
See the critical apparatus of Constantin Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece
(Lipsiae: Sumptibus Adolphi Winter, 1859), 656.
44
Hills was uncertain and simply suggested that it seems to be a misprint (emphasis
mine). Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian Research
Press, 1984), 202.
45
Ibid.
46
LSJ, s.v. kaiper, 859.
47
Cited in J A Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, 2nd ed
(Collingswood: Bible For Today, 1988), 16.
48
Ibid., 26.
49
50
As cited in Thomas Holland, Manuscript Evidence, http://www.purewords.org/
kjb1611/html/rev16_5.htm, accessed on 9 March 2009, emphasis mine.
51
Ibid. See also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 211, for information on Beatus of Liebana.
52
Robert L Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody,
1995), 255-6.
53
54
Ibid., 223.
55
See also Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, 102.
56
F H A Scrivener, The New Testament in Greek (Cambridge: University Press, 1881),
648-55.
57
The evidence we do have tells a lot about the work but not enough to clear up all
mysteries about how the work was done; speculation and guesswork will be unavoidable as
we try to establish just how the text [i.e. KJV] was created. David Norton, A Textual History
of the King James Bible, 4.
58
John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians, in Calvins
Commentaries trans R Mackenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973 reprint), 141.
59
60
Kevin James, The Corruption of the Word (Williamsburg: Micro-Load Press, 1990),
210; and Moorman, When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text, 61.
61
62
569

63
64
Ibid., 158.
Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Peabody: Hendricksen, nd),
3:856.
65
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, s.v. elpis, by Spiros
Zodhiates.
66
According to Liddell, Scott and Jones (LSJ), elpizo can mean the reason to expect
or believe, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. elpizo, 537. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker
(BAGD) say that elpizo can come with the indication of the person or thing on whom
(which) the hope is based, in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. elpizo,
252; also Louw and Nida (LN), elpis : derivative of elpizo that which constitutes the
cause or reason for hopingthe basis for hope, the reason for hope., in Greek-English
Lexicon, s.v. Hope, Look Forward To, 1:296.
67
68
TDNT, s.v. hierosulos, by Gottlob Schrenk.
69
Ibid.
70
See John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles 14-28, in Calvins Commentaries trans
John Fraser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991 reprint), 166.
71
This writer rejects Peter Ruckmans view that the KJV presents advanced
revelation in Acts 19:37. See Combs, Errors in the King James Version? 158, footnote 21.
72
Ibid., 159.
73
Nick Sayers, Why We Should Not Pass-over Easter, Contending Earnestly for the
Faith (March 2008): 2-7, available at http://www.christian-witness.org/pdf/cetf/cetf43.pdf,
accessed on 15 April 2009. Noteworthy is Sayers expose of the false link between Easter
and paganism as popularised by Alexander Hislop. See also Thomas Holland, Crowned with
Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version, Swordsearcher Version 5,
Brandon Staggs, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, 2005; also available at http://av1611.com/kjbp/
faq/holland_ac12_4.html, accessed on 15 April 2009; Jack Moorman, Easter, or Passover,
in http://www.feasite.org/Tracts/fbconies.htm#Easter, accessed on 15 April 2009; Will
Kinney, Is Easter an Error in the King James Bible, in http://www.geocities.com/
brandplucked/Easter.html, accessed on 15 April 2009. Terence H Brown of the Trinitarian
Bible Society however is of the opinion that Passover is to be preferred to Easter, see his
article The Use of Easter in Acts 12:4, in http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/
articles/easter.asp, accessed on 15 April 2009.
74
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, s.v. Pasch, Paschal Controversy, by Thomas
M Finn.
75
Nick Sayers, Why We Should Not Pass-over Easter, 7.
76
77
The Defined King James Bible (Collingswood: Bible for Today, 1998), 1542.
78
79
Ibid.
80
See my article, Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the Present
Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
81
See my article, Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration Do Without Verbal Plenary
Preservation?: The Achilles Heel of Princeton Bibliology, The Burning Bush 13 (2007):
25-43.
82
Geoffrey Chapman, Catechism of the Catholic Church (London: Cassell Imprint,
1994), 205.
570

83
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans George Musgrave Giger
(Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 106.
84
Dictionary of Greek and Latin Theological Terms, s.v. autographa, by Richard A
Muller.
85
571
52
A PUBLIC RESPONSE TO MR LIM SENG HOOS
OPEN LETTER AND PAPER
AGAINST THE VERBAL PLENARY
PRESERVATION OF SCRIPTURE
Jeffrey Khoo
I refer to Mr Lim Seng Hoos open letter of July 13, 2005, and his
so-called evidential review against the Biblical doctrine of the 100%
perfect preservation of the Holy Scriptures.
It is my sincere desire that in all things, including the writing of this
response, that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ be glorified always (Isa
42:8, Jer 9:23-24, 1 Cor 1:17-31), and that I should be loyal and faithful
to Him no matter what the cost (Mark 8:34, Rev 2:10). For the last 13
years of my teaching ministry at the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC), I
have been taking the Dean Burgon oath that the Word of God is perfect
without any mistake. This oath was instituted by FEBCs founding
principalthe Rev Dr Timothy Towand required of all faculty
members at the colleges annual convocation since the 1970s. I gladly
take this oath and dare not break it by denying that the Sacred Scriptures I
swore by and have in my hands today are infallible and inerrant, without
any mistake.
The perfect Bible is not only for me, but for every one who bears the
name of Christ. The truth that Christians today possess an infallible and
inerrant Scripture based on the Biblical doctrines of the Verbal Plenary
Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of Scripture is
clearly taught and explained in the following books and papers written by
the FEBC faculty:
1. Timothy Tow and Jeffrey Khoo, A Theology for Every Christian:
Knowing God and His Word (Singapore: FEBC Press, 1998).
2. Timothy Tow, Holy Hatred, The Burning Bush 4 (1998): 106113.
572
A Public Response to Mr Lim Seng Hoos Open Letter and Paper
3. Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised

Version and the Doctrine of Providential Preservation (Singapore: FEBC
Press, 2001).
4. Jeffrey Khoo, Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of
From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, The Burning Bush 7 (2001):
1-24. Republished together with another review by Thomas Strouse, in
Reviews of the Book From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man by
Pensacola Theological Seminary for distribution in USA.
5. Timothy Tow, Death in the Pot!, The Burning Bush 7 (2001):
35-37.
6. Prabhudas Koshy, Why We Should Regard the Bible as
Authoritative, Bible Witness, July-September 2001, 8-10.
7. Timothy Tow, Gods Special Providential Care of the Text of
Scripture, Bible Witness, October-December 2002, 3-4.
8. Jeffrey Khoo, A Perfect Bible Today!, Bible Witness, OctoberDecember 2002, 5-6.
9. Prabhudas Koshy, Jesus View of the Holy Scripture: An
Exposition of Matthew 5:17-19, Bible Witness, October-December 2002,
12-15.
10. Prabhudas Koshy, If We Reject the Doctrine of the Perfect
Preservation of the Bible, Bible Witness, October-December 2002, 1617.
11. Prabhudas Koshy, Faith Guides, Intellectualism Beguiles,
Bible Witness, October-December 2002, 18-20.
12. Jeffrey Khoo, A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The Burning Bush 9
(2003): 1-15.
13. Jeffrey Khoo, KJV Questions and Answers (Singapore: Bible
Witness Literature Ministry, 2003).
14. Jeffrey Khoo, The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One
Bible Only? or Yea Hath God Said?, The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 247.
15. Quek Suan Yew, Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh?, The
Burning Bush 10 (2004): 48-53.
16. Jeffrey Khoo, John Owen on the Perfect Bible, The Burning
Bush 10 (2004): 74-85.
573
17. Prabhudas Koshy, Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the
Corrupt Septuagint, The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 93-95.
18. Quek Suan Yew, Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?:
Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7, The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-98.
19. Jeffrey Khoo, Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for
the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, The
Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
20. Quek Suan Yew, Jesus on Perfect Preservation of the Bible,
Bible Witness, March-April 2005, 3-6.
21. Jeffrey Khoo, The Canonisation and Preservation of Scripture,
Bible Witness, March-April 2005, 7-8.
22. Timothy Tow, My Glory Will I Not Give to Another (Isaiah
42:8), The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 67-68.
23. Carol Lee, A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal
Plenary Preservation, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 69-81.
24. Jeffrey Khoo, Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and
Biblical Preservation, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 82-97.
Despite my efforts to uphold the reliability of the KJV and the
infallibility and inerrancy of its underlying Hebrew and Greek Scriptures,
Mr Lim appears to do whatever is in his power to oppose and criticise my
defence of the KJV and the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures on which it is
based. Many who are knowledgeable of the VPP of Scripture and what it
truly means are not troubled by Mr Lims paper, but there are some who
are disturbed and confused, and are asking the question: Mr Lim uses
the KJV, and so do you, so why is he then so dead against your defence
of the KJV? What is the difference between Mr Lims position and
yours? It is a good question which must be answered.
I think it will clarify if I (1) list the differences between Mr Lims
position and my position on the preservation of Scriptures; (2) respond to
Mr Lims allegations made against the doctrine of the VPP of Scripture,
and (3) rebut, point-by-point, his arguments against the present perfection
of Scripture.
The following letters from Mr Lim and other documents that I have
(and will be prepared to release if required or necessary) have been used
to collate or summarise Mr Lims non-VPP position:
574
1. Letter dated January 2, 2003 to Rev Dr Timothy Tow (copied to

Dr SH Tow and to me).
2. Letter dated February 12, 2003 to me (copied to Rev Dr Timothy
Tow, and Dr SH Tow).
3. Letter dated March 14, 2003 to me.
4. Letter dated March 27, 2003 to me (copied to Rev Dr Timothy
Tow, and Dr SH Tow).
5. Letter dated September 24, 2003 to me with his paper, An
Evidential Review of the VPP Theory.
6. Open Letter dated July 13, 2005 to me, 10 Jul 05 Morning
Sermon at Calvary Pandan: Jn 7:24 Judge Righteous Judgement-No
Basis for Perfect KJB.
Below is the table showing Mr Lims position and the 20 points of
differences between Mr Lims position and mine:
Non-VPP: Imperfect Preservation
of Holy Scriptures
VPP: Perfect Preservation of Holy

Scriptures
VPP of Scripture is "theory."
VPP of Scripture is doctrine (Ps

12:6-7, Matt 5:18).
Only VPI autographs are infallible and

inerrant. Bible perfect only in the
past. Dean Burgon Oath refers not
at all to the apographs, but only
autographs.
Both VPI autographs and VPP

apographs are infallible and inerrant.
Bible perfect in the past as well
as in the present. Autographs are
fully/entirely preserved in the faithful
and infallible apographs. The
infallibility of the apographs is a
reformed doctrine.
Based on logic of facts per se. No

support from Bible whatsoever.
"Without doubt, Almighty God could
easily have given us a VPP apographs
[sic] as well as made the autographs
indestructible, but the evidence is
that He did not!"
Based on logic of faith that rests on

the Bible itself (Heb 11:6). This leads
to the correct interpretation of facts
or evidences. The Holy Scriptures
(autographs and apographs) by God's
divine inspiration and special
preservation are incorruptible and
indestructible.
575

of Holy Scriptures

Scriptures
Facts say that Bible contains actual

discrepancies. Discrepancies are found
in 2 Kings 8:26/2 Chron 22:2, and 2
Sam 8:4/1 Chron 18:4. These are
scribal errors.
Faith that is based on the Bible alone

(Sola Scriptura) says that the Bible is
"perfect" and "very pure" (Pss 19:7,
119:40). Discrepancies are only
apparent.
There are no errors at all in 2 Kings
8:26/2 Chron 22:2, and 2 Sam 8:4/1
Chron 18:4 scribal or otherwise.
"Let God be true, but every man a
liar" (Rom 3:4).
God's Word has "built-in redundancy." The Bible has no redundant words at
all. Every word in the Bible is
important (Matt 4:4).
God's Word has "built-in checks"

(citing out of context, 2 Cor 13:1,
Matt 18:16, Deut 29:15), ie, Scripture
corrects Scripture; rejects
harmonisation of Scripture.
"No single purified text." Therefore no Every God-breathed Hebrew,

perfect Bible today.
Aramaic, Greek word is preserved
to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18,
24:35). Therefore perfect Bible exists
today in all the inspired Hebrew,
Aramaic, Greek words (not text per
se) underlying the Reformation Bibles
best represented by the KJV, not the
modern Bible versions which are
based on the corrupt and critical texts
of Westcott-Hort.
"Of the thousands of extant apographa

both OT and NT, no two are alike,
which would mean ... not even a
single one is jot and tittle perfect."
Jesus in AD 27 held the OT apograph

in His hands, and declared that it is jot
and tittle perfect (Matt 5:18). Jesus
Christ is true, not any "textual critic."
Cites for authority, many human

authors and commentaries.
Cites for authority the 100% perfect

Word of Godour only supreme and
final rule of faith and life.
576
Scripture does not correct itself by

virtue of its inerrancy and infallibility.
Scripture interprets Scripture, and
harmonises with Scripture (1 Cor
2:13).

of Holy Scriptures

Scriptures
10
Contends for the "inerrancy of the

meaning." "Whether we have all the
original jots and tittles or not, every
key meanings [sic] and salvation
doctrines [sic] are [sic] entirely
preserved!"
Contends for the inerrancy of the

words. Meaning comes from words
(how can there be meaning without
words?). Every word to the jot and
tittle is therefore preserved (Matt
5:18), not just "salvation doctrines."
Every spiritual, historical, geographical,
and scientific word is preserved.
11
Misrepresents by stating that "VPPism

requires an inspired KJV textual
criticism;" "VPPism requires ... English
as the singly blessed language of the
Gospel;" the KJV is "absolutely
perfect;" "it is KJV fundamentalism
gone extreme." Creates a false
dichotomy, "May we be Christians
first, theologians second."
Absolute perfection lies only in the

Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek Scriptures
on which the KJV is based (2 Tim
3:16). The KJV is the best, most
faithful, most accurate, most
trustworthy, most beautiful Bible in the
English language. Its "perfection,"
"infallibility," or "inerrancy" is only in
the derived sense (as far as it
accurately and faithfully reflects the
original). The KJV is not directly,
doubly or separately inspired
(rejects Ruckmanism which is "KJV
fundamentalism gone extreme").
12
Understands providential preservation Understands providential preservation

in terms of general providencenon- in terms of special providence
miraculous.
supernatural and miraculous (involving
God's personal supervision and direct
intervention). "By His singular care
and providence, kept pure in all ages"
(WCF, I:8). Biblical preservation is
God's work, not man's.
13
Perfect preservation is a "new

doctrine."
Perfect preservation is as old as the

Bible (Ps 12:6-7). "It stands perfectly
written" (Greek perfect tense of
gegraptai).
14
Psalm 12:6-7 means preservation of

the people of God, not the words of
God.
Psalm 12:6-7 means preservation of

the words of God according to
Hebrew grammar and exegesis (GKC,
440).
577

of Holy Scriptures

Scriptures
15
Falsely accuses VPP holders of

saying, "the Bible was not kept pure
in all ages, but only restored pure
from 1611 onwards."
"The purity of God's words has been

faithfully maintained in the
Traditional/Byzantine/Majority/
Received Text, and fully represented
in the Textus Receptus that underlies
the KJV."
16
The perfect Bible is found only in

heaven, kept in the Ark of His
testament (Rev 11:19), not on earth!
The perfect Bible is not only found in

heaven but also on earth (Ps 119:89,
Matt 4:4). "Thy will be done in earth,
as it is in heaven" (Matt 6:10).
17
The words of God will not be forever God's words are permanently,
preserved. God's words will pass
perpetually and perfectly preserved,
away when the earth passes away.
and will never pass away. God will
keep and fulfil every jot and tittle of
His words both in heaven and on
earth (Matt 5:18), and His words shall
never pass away (Matt 24:35),
"forever settled," (Ps 119:89), and
"endureth for ever" (1 Pet 1:25).
18
Accuses VPP proponents of teaching

an "insidious heresy."
Believing that God's inspired Canon

and words are 100% preserved in the
original language Scriptures, the
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek words
underlying the KJV is not heresy, but
the truth (cf 2 Cor 13:8).
19
It is godly and scholarly to believe that

the Bible is no longer perfect today.
VPP defenders are divisive and
unscholarly men.
It glorifies God and edifies the saints

to believe that the Bible today is
totally infallible and inerrant, pure and
perfect in every way (Isa 42:8).
Believes in Biblical separation from
unbelief and compromise.
20
Unable to say, "I have a 100% perfect Can confidently say, "I have a 100%
Bible today."
perfect Bible today that is absolutely
infallible and inerrant."
578
I am not alone in defending the VPP of Scripture. Hear from no less

a stalwart of the fundamentalist faith than the Rev Dr Ian Paisley who, in
his book My Plea for the Old Sword (KJV), wrote:
Divine Revelation plus Divine Inspiration plus Divine Preservation equals
the Divine Bible. These all, without exception, cover the whole field of
every Word of God. There is no such thing as verbal Revelation without
verbal Inspiration and there is no such thing as verbal Inspiration without
verbal Preservation. In all cases it is not partial but plenary i.e. full,
complete, perfect. ...
The Divine Revelation, put into writing the verbally Infallible Scriptures
through Divine Inspiration, must have Divine Preservation in order to be
available to all generations. The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures
demands the verbal Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would deny
the need for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as being really
committed to verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God today
then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished.
In such a case any Bible is as good as any other. Hence the multiplication
and continuing changes of perverted English versions of the Bible on the
market today.
Those who believe in a partial preservation are not much better. To say that
God has preserved most of the Original Scriptures but not them all, robs us
of every Word of God. Therefore we cannot live [by His every word, Matt
4:4]. This is but another way to pen-knife Gods every Word.
Those who do not believe that God preserved His Word are really going
down the path of final rejection of that Book of which the Lord Jesus Christ
said, The Word of God cannot be broken. Thank God, no potency can
disintegrate this Rock.1
Dr Paisley went on to defend the VPP of Scripture and the KJV

from Psalm 12:6-7:
Surely here we have the Doctrine of Divine Preservation divinely revealed.
The preserved Scriptures cannot be lost or caused in any way to perish. As
of the God who uttered them, so we can say, Thou remainest!
It is interesting to note that the new Bibles vary the words of Psalm 12:6-7
and so eliminate the testimony of that verse to the Divine Preservation of
the Scriptures. They insist that the them of verse seven is not a reference
to Gods words but to Gods people ...and destroy the texts testimony to the
Preservation of Gods Word.
Gods providential preservation of His own Word ensured that the true
Scriptures were not hidden away in the library of the Antichrist nor in a
579

monastery of Greek Catholic idolatry at the time when Tyndale prepared
his Bible. Faithful and true copies of the originals were at hand for the
Divine Bombshell (Tyndales translation of Gods Holy Word into English)
which would smash the Roman Antichrist. He translated into English the
Preserved Word of God, not the Perverted Word of God.
A return to the Apostolic Gospel comes as a result of Tyndales work. A
return to the Apostate Gospel comes as a result of the translation of Romes
long hidden, perverted text and other such perverted texts in the Modern
Perversions of the Scriptures.
The Authorised Version translated into English the Preserved Word of God
and so preserved for the English speaking peoples of the World, the Word
of the Living God, the only infallible Rule of Faith and Practice.2
Can Mr Lim say Amen to Paisley?

Now, let me respond to Mr Lims open letter of July 13, 2005 point
by point.
Mr Lims Skewed Version of My Sermon

Mr Lim started by presenting a skewed version of my sermon: I
refer [to] your sermon last Sunday morning, which was diverted to
promote your pet but unfounded doctrine of KJV Perfectionism in its
underlying Hebrew and Greek apographs (copies). Your two points on the
assigned Scripture text are that 1) judge not according to appearance
means not by dress, good looks, and a good singing voice, etc, and 2) but
judge righteous judgement means to hold to Verbal Plenary Preservation
(VPP) of the KJV underlying texts. He then went on to present his true
exegesis of the text.
My Refutation
First, let me say that the topic I preached on, Judge Righteous
Judgement (John 7:14-24), was not a topic I chose, but was one assigned
to me. I indeed preached a two-point sermon based on the assigned
theme, but Mr Lims skewed phrasing and slanted summary of what I
preached do not accurately reflect my position on the VPP of Scripture,
nor the tenor of my sermon. My two points in answer to the question,
How may we judge righteous judgement?, were (1) Do not Judge
According to Outward Appearance (John 7:24), but (2) Judge According
to the Word of God (John 7:16-17). I did not spend every minute of my
sermon talking about my pet doctrine as alleged. I applied my sermon
580
to a variety of issues in life. I spoke against the Hollywood philosophy

that a good-looking outward appearance is the secret to success and
happiness in life. I warned of how we as Christians are also prone to form
impressions just by looking at a persons external appearance, and
thereby make wrong judgements. I cited Samuel as an example of one
who made a mistake in looking for the tall, dark and handsome man
among Jesses children to be Israels new king (1 Sam 16). I read to the
congregation 1 Sam 16:7, But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on
his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have refused
him: for the LORD seeth not as a man seeth; for man looketh on the
outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart. I also cited 2
Cor 11:14-15 where Paul warned against Satan who presents himself
handsome and charming, not ugly and terrifying, in his efforts to seduce
and deceive the unwary and ignorant, And no marvel; for Satan himself
is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his
ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose
end shall be according to their works. (I expect Satan and his minions to
be very unhappy with my sermon; but believers? Surely not!)
In my second point, I pointed out that the only way believers can
make righteous judgements today is by basing their judgements on the
Word of God. I then went on to point out that if we are to make righteous/
truthful judgements, we can only do so if we have a Perfect Standard, and
this Perfect Standard cannot be man and his philosophy, but God and His
TheologyHis Word! I went on to ask the question: Do we have a
Perfect Written Standard in the Word of God today? And the answer is
an unequivocal yes based on Gods unfailing promise of the infallible
preservation of His words as taught in Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, Matt 24:35,
1 Pet 1:24-25 and many other Scripture verses. The authority of the
Scriptures is bound to its perfection, is it not? If the Scriptures that we
have today are not totally infallible and inerrant, how then can the
Scriptures be our only, final, and supreme rule of faith and practice?
In another letter to Dr SH Tow, Mr Lims senior pastor, and the
elders of Calvary Pandan BPC dated July 30, 2005, Mr Lim accused me
of disturbing the peace of the Church, As for disturbance of the peace, it
was Dr Jeffrey Khoos sermon on 10 Jul ... that really disturbed the peace
and harmony of our Church. After the sermon, many were disgruntled
and disturbed. I being just one of them. Is this true? Were many
581
indeed disgruntled and disturbed? If so, precisely how many? What

was the percentage of members who felt that my sermon was erroneous
and unedifying?
There was in fact no confusion or chaos in Calvary Pandan BPC
after my sermon. I have not received any protest from members of
Calvary Pandan except for Mr Lims open letter of unjust accusations
against me which he personally distributed and mass emailed to his
church members and others. This he did without the approval of his
pastors or the Board of Elders. Was Mr Lims conduct ethically
acceptable given his membership vows?
Now, if the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin when the truth is preached,
do we then conclude that it is disturbing the peace and harmony of the
church? Must every believer feel good before a sermon can be
considered edifying? The B-P Church has always preached the
unpopular but Biblical doctrine of separation, has it not? If such an
unpleasant sermon is preached, and some members of the church are
disgruntled and disturbed, should we then conclude that the preacher is
divisive and unedifying? If we allow this, will we not create an
ecumenical pulpit that will only seek to tickle the ears of the hearers? Is
this not what Paul warned against in 2 Tim 4:2-3, Preach the word; be
instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all
longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their
ears from the truth. May the Lord continue to preserve the faithful pulpit
ministry of Calvary Pandan BPC and all Bible-believing and Bibledefending BPCs.
Mr Lims Confusion over the VPP of Scripture in Relation to

Translations
Mr Lim wrote, The same verses [i.e. Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, 1
Pet 1:24-25] that you cited are also found in all the other Bible versions
such as the Chinese United Version (CUV), the Indonesian Akitab [sic],
The [sic] Thai Bible, NASV, NIV, NKJV, etc. Anyone reading these in
those versions, if interpreting as you do, would conclude that it is their
version that is VPP, rather than the KJV.
582
My Clarification
Mr Lim claimed that he has read carefully all my papers on the
VPP of Scripture, but I doubt that he has from what he has stated above.
It must be underscored that VPP refers to Gods special providential
preservation of every jot and tittle of His God-breathed Hebrew, Aramaic
and Greek words, and not the translated words whether English, Chinese,
Indonesian, or Thai. It is important to understand that the inspiration and
preservation of Scriptures in light of Scripture itself (and accurately
stated in the Westminster Confession) concerns the Scriptures in the
original languages or the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New
Testament, not any version or translation, ancient or modern. Versions
and translations can be improved on (eg, The Defined King James Bible
published by Bible For Today is certainly an improvement on the 1611
and 1769 editions of the KJV), but not the original language Scriptures
which God has promised to keep pure, perfect, infallible, inerrant, and
authentical.
Do note that the NASV and NIV render Ps 12:6-7 quite differently
from the KJV. They may have the same verses but they do not have the
same words. Ps 12:6-7 in the KJV reads:
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve
them from this generation for ever.
But the NIV reads quite differently, especially verse 7:

And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of
clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us
from such people forever.
The NASV also reads rather differently:

The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the
earth, refined seven times. Thou, O LORD, will keep them; Thou wilt
preserve him from this generation forever.
Which of the above translated words accurately translate the

verbally and plenarily preserved words of the Hebrew Scripture? I urge
you to read Rev Dr Quek Suan Yews article, Did God Promise to
Preserve His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7 for insights and
answers.3
If we do not have a perfect written standard in a verbally and
plenarily preserved original language Scripture today, there will be no
583
way to prove which translation or version is correct; as anything goes.

The NIV or NASV could be just as good as, if not better than, the KJV.
Who is to say that the good old KJV is reliable and the many new and
modern versions unreliable? Your judgement would be as good as mine.
Man becomes the final authority, not the Scriptures. Please realise that
the doctrine of the VPP of Scripture is the solid bedrock for the defence
of the KJV. The moment we throw out the VPP of Scripture, we surrender
our only sure defence of the KJV against the modern versions or
perversions of the Bible. The devil knows this, and it is no wonder he is
doing all he can to tear this doctrine down!
Mr Lims Misinterpretation of Matt 5:18 and Matt 24:35

Mr Lim commented, When the earth passes away, would not all
that it contains including all material apographs also pass away? In these
verses therefore, our Lord was not referring to apographs, but rather as
the context clearly shows, to the absolute and inviolable claims of God
and of the Son upon us, for Jesus spake as one having authority, and not
as the scribes. (Mt 7:28).
My Refutation
According to Mr Lim, Matt 5:18 means that all the words in the
material apographs would pass away when the earth passes away. Mr
Lims interpretation of Matt 5:18 contradicts Matt 24:35 which clearly
says, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away (Luke 21:33, Mark 13:31). Having created a contradiction in
Scripture, he then attempted a harmonisation by spiritualising the term
words in Matt 24:35 to mean the claims of God. I submit to you that
the Scriptures must be understood literally, words mean precisely
words, not just claims or doctrines, or truths. Now, I do not
dispute that the claims of God are inviolable, but how can we have Gods
claims without Gods words?
Mr Lim is wrong to dismiss the apographs of the Scriptures, denying
their infallibility and inerrancy. Please know that the reformers never
thought of the infallibility of the Scriptures in terms of the non-existent
autographs but the present and extant apographs. Francis Turretin (162387)pastor-theologian of the Church and Academy of Genevawrote:
By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of
Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now
584

exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth
to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the
immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.4
In the final analysis, whether the material apographs (or for that
matter the material autographs which we no longer have) will pass
away or not is immaterial and not the point. What we do know for sure in
light of Jesus promise in Matt 5:18 and 24:35 is that every one of the
inspired words of the Holy Scriptures in the autographs and the
apographs will never pass away.
Mr Lims Misinterpretation of Ps 119:140

Mr Lim questioned, Was the psalmists love of Gods Word due to
the purity of the apographs? And this Psalm, being written before the
completion of Scripture canon, if VPP pureness (completeness, perfect to
every jot and tittle) is meant, should have been the last book of the Bible.
Is not the purity here rather the purifying effect of Gods Word?
My Refutation
It is absurd for Mr Lim to suggest that I take the psalmist to mean
that Ps 119 is the last book of the Bible just because he wrote, Thy word
is very pure. The psalmist was referring to the nature or quality of the
Word, that it is pristine, pure and perfect in every aspect. This is also the
case with Ps 19:7, The law of the LORD is perfect. The words pure
and perfect are adjectives, describing the nature of Gods Word and not
simply the effect of the Word.
Mr Lims Misrepresentation of the VPP of Scripture

Mr Lim misrepresents the VPP of Scripture when he wrote, For the
KJV to have an identical apograph text to the Divine Autographs
(Originals), in jot and tittle terms, would necessitate a second inspiration
either in the copying process, the textual editing process or the translation
process.
My Refutation
If Mr Lim knows basic theology and has indeed read my papers
carefully, he would not wrong me by accusing me of advocating a
second inspiration of the Scriptures. I did not confuse inspiration with
preservation. Inspiration speaks of Gods miraculous one-time work of
breathing out the original inspired words in the autographs in the days
585
of the prophets and apostles (2 Tim 3:16). Preservation, on the other

hand, refers to Gods supernatural and continuous work of keeping pure
the very same original inspired words in all ages so that in every
generation Gods people will always have every iota of His words (Matt
5:18).
The processes and dynamics involved in Gods work of inspiration
and preservation are inscrutable and inexplicable. O the depth of the
riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are
his judgements, and his ways past finding out! (Rom 11:33). I do not
pretend to know everything about how God inspired His words, or how
He preserved them. I simply believe Himmy Lord and my Godwho
is all-powerful to keep His words, His truths and His promises. I just take
Him at His Word with simple, childlike faith, period. Bottom line is:
God says it, that settles it, I believe it. The logic of faith is precisely
this: The Bible says it, that settles it, we believe it.
Mr Lim believes in the partial or imperfect preservation of
Scripture. But the problem with his view is that there is not a single verse
in the Bible which says Gods Word is imperfectly preserved, or we do
not have a 100% perfect Bible in our possession today. What we do find
however is that there are many verses in the Bible which teach the
perfect, permanent, and perpetual preservation of Gods inspired original
language words (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, 1 Pet 1:23-25). Please see
George Skariahs doctoral dissertation on the perfect preservation of the
Holy Scriptures which offers a most Christ-honouring and faith-building
exegesis and exposition of no less than 50 Biblical verses/passages that
prove this doctrine (not theory or heresy as Mr Lim would have us
believe).5
Mr Lims Dubious Affirmation

After arguing against the VPP of Scripture, Mr Lim says, This does
not mean that Gods Word is not preserved for us! They are in the
providential sense!
My Critique
I had used the term providential preservation in my book Kept
Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the Doctrine of
Providential Preservation. Mr Lim uses the same word, but appears to
understand it differently. In these days of deception, it is not enough just
586
to know what is said, it is equally if not more important to know what is

meant by what is said.
There is a recent book entitled Gods Word in Our Hands: The Bible
Preserved for Us. The book title makes it appear that the writers believe
and support the doctrine of the 100% preservation of the words of
Scripture, but the contents of the book prove otherwise. Read my review
of this book, Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical
Preservation in The Burning Bush.6 In my critique, I exposed why and
how BJU and other pro-Westcott/Hort advocates do not believe that God
will and is able to preserve perfectly all of His words to the last iota, that
all of His inspired words will always remain available and accessible to
His people all the time until the end of time. Mr Lims arguments against
the KJV and VPP of Scripture are dj vu, and not new to me. I have not
only answered them in my above critique, but in two other earlier ones as
well.7
Mr Lims Quotation of Dean Burgon

Mr Lim quoted Burgon to argue that there is no such thing as VPP.
He wrote, Dean Burgon expresses it thus, But I would especially
remind my readers of Bentleys golden precept, that The real text of the
sacred writers does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie
in any MS, or edition, but is dispersed in them all.
My Explanation
We are thankful to the Lord for Dean Burgon for a number of
reasons: (1) Burgon was a defender of the Byzantine or Majority Text
which he called the Traditional Text over against the Alexandrian or
Minority Text of Westcott and Hort which he viewed as the Corrupted
Text and rightly so. (2) Burgon was a strong defender for the KJV and
spoke against any revision of it. Although Burgon defended the KJV in
no uncertain terms, there was a weakness in his defence of it. It is
unfortunate that Burgon did not defend the Textus Receptusthe Greek
Text underlying the KJVas strongly as he did the KJV. That is the
reason why he spoke in terms of the dispersed rather than the
received text.
Why did Burgon have such a relatively low view of the Textus
Receptus? Dr E F Hillsa friend and classmate of Dr McIntire at
Westminster, a ThD graduate of Harvard, and a Presbyterian defender of
587
the Textus Receptusmade an astute observation. He noted that Burgon

was biased against the Textus Receptus because of his extreme
Anglicanism which believes in the doctrine of apostolic succession. Dr
Hills rightly commented that Burgons mistaken Anglican view of
apostolic succession and emphasis on the NT quotations of the Bishops
or Church Fathers failed him
when he came to deal with the printed Greek New Testament text. For from
Reformation times down to his own day the printed Greek New Testament
text which had been favored by the bishops of the Anglican Church was the
Textus Receptus, and the Textus Receptus had not been prepared by
bishops but by Erasmus, who was an independent scholar. Still worse, from
Burgons standpoint, was the fact that the particular form of the Textus
Receptus used in the Church of England was the third edition of Stephanus,
who was a Calvinist. For these reasons, therefore, Burgon and Scrivener
looked askance at the Textus Receptus and declined to defend it except in
so far as it agreed with the Traditional Text found in the majority of the
Greek New Testament manuscripts.8
Dr Hills went on to say that Burgons approach to identifying the

preserved text is illogical. Hills wrote:
If we believe in the providential preservation of the New Testament text,
then we must defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text
found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is
the only form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To
decline to defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that Gods
providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the
invention of printing. It is to suppose that God, having preserved a pure
New Testament text all during the manuscript period, unaccountably left
this pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to issue
from the printing press and circulate among His people for more than 450
years. Much, then, as we admire Burgon for his general orthodoxy and for
his defense of the Traditional New Testament Text, we cannot follow him in
his high Anglican emphasis or in his disregard for the Textus Receptus.9
Mr Lims Endorsement of Textual Criticism

Mr Lim without qualification said, Textual criticism is not a dirty
word or a needless science.
My Response
Textual criticism is not really a science. Subjectivity and speculation
are part and parcel of textual criticism. Under pro-Westcott/Hort lecturers
588
and professors in my Bible college and seminary days, I had studied

textual criticism and even practised it. Has it been an edifying exercise
for me? Not a bit! In fact, it left me with more questions than answers and
filled me with pride because it made me think I had the intellect or
intelligence to judge which part of Scripture is Gods word and which
part is not. The principle of faith and doctrine is totally left out in the socalled science of textual criticism, and I found that to be very
disturbing and dangerous to my faith in Gods Word.
The subjectivity and speculation involved in textual criticism made
A E Houseman to comment that A textual critic engaged upon his
business is not at all like Newton investigating the motions of the planets:
he is much more like a dog hunting for fleas.10 Georg Luck of Johns
Hopkins University rightly said, our critical texts are no better than our
textual critics.11
If I were to build my faith in Gods Word based on textual criticism,
I would be building my house on sand and not on rock. Instead of
subjective, speculative and rationalistic textual criticism, we should
employ the Biblical principle of the VPP of Scripture to help us identify
where Gods words are. Based on Biblical doctrine of the VPP of
Scripture (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35 etc), I believe I am building my
house upon a rock-solid foundation. Thus, I refuse to hear the voice of
textual critics, but the voice of my Lord Himself in His forever infallible
and inerrant Word, Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine,
and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house
upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds
blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a
rock (Matt 7:24-25).
Dr Timothy Tow rightly used the Biblical principle of the glory of
God to argue that the Bible today is perfect without any mistake because
of Gods perfect preservation of His words.12 Does it glorify God to say
that the Bible is imperfectly preserved based on the so-called logic of
facts, or to simply believe what the Bible so clearly says about itself,
that the Bible is perfectly preserved based on the logic of faith (Heb 11:3,
6)?
589
Mr Lims Textual Problems

Mr Lim wrote, As for clear evidence of textual problems in the
KJV underlying texts, I here cite two (we both know of more, yet only
one is needed to disprove the Perfect KJV-VPP case).
My Defence of the Hebrew and Greek Texts Underlying KJV

Mr Lim believes that there is clear evidence of textual problems
in the underlying texts of the KJV. His evidence is clear only to him
and all sceptics who consider apparent problems as actual problems due
to their cynical approach toward the Scriptures. A faith-based, Christexalting, Biblical preservationist approach to textual identification does
not see them as problems, discrepancies, or mistakes at all for they
are not.
Mr Lim on 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chron 18:4

Mr Lim accuses me of using a spiritualising, non-literal, and liberal
interpretation of Gods Word in my attempt to harmonise or reconcile
the apparent discrepancy in 2 Sam 8:4 and 1 Chron 18:4.
My Rebuttal
Harmonising the Scriptures is far from spiritualising the Scriptures.
Contrary to what Mr Lim thinks, the harmonisation of Scriptures takes
the Scriptures literally, 700 means 700, 7,000 means 7,000 in 2 Sam 8:4
and 1 Chron 18:4 respectively. Mr Lim dismisses my attempt at
harmonisation by pontificating, The obvious difficulty is that there are
no groups. But Matthew Henry, the renowned puritan commentator
himself, did not think such a harmonisation improbable. In his
commentary on 2 Sam 8:4, he wrote, The horsemen are here said to be
700, but 1 Chron. Xviii.4. seven thousand. If they divided their horse by
ten in a company, as it is probable they did, the captains and companies
were 700, but the horsemen were 7000.13
But Mr Lim dismisses such faithful attempts at defending the
inerrancy of the Scripture with demeaning and conceited words which I
do not care to repeat. His solution actually creates more problems
because it looks like he agrees with the Westcott and Hort textual critical
view that (1) older manuscripts are better, that (2) the old and traditional
textual readings must be replaced by new and recently discovered ones,
and the Ruckmanite view that (3) translations or versions can be more
inspired than, and can thus be used to correct, the original language text.
590
Mr Lim on Matt 10:8

Following Burgon, Mr Lim doubts the reading of Matt 10:8 in the
Textus Receptus concerning Jesus commission to His disciples to raise
the dead.
My Rebuttal
Although we admire Burgons stout defence of the KJV, and his
powerful offence against Westcott and Hort and their Revised Version,
we do not agree with his relatively low view of the Textus Receptus.
Unlike Mr Lim, we do not follow Burgon blindly. The reason why
Burgon held to such a disparaging view of the Textus Receptus is already
explained above. Burgon as noted by Hills was coloured by his Anglican
bias, and hence became clouded in his understanding of Gods special
preservation of the Scriptures in the days of the Protestant Reformation.
I thus agree with Hills that Burgons approach to identifying the
preserved text is illogical. Unlike Burgon, Hills supported the
authenticity of Matt 10:8 because he believed that it has been placed in
the Textus Receptus by the direction of Gods special providence.14
Calvin in his commentary on Matt 10:8 took for granted the authenticity
of Matt 10:8, and had no problem affirming that the Lord is quite
deliberate in telling them to raise the dead.15
Mr Lims Puzzling Appeal

Mr Lim wrote, Stop alleging that we say that the Bible contains
errors!
My Questions
If Mr Lim does not say that the Bible contains errors, then why does
he keep on arguing for errors in the Bible (in 2 Sam 8:4, 2 Chron 22:2
and many other places) when there are no such errors to begin with? If
Mr Lim does not believe there are any errors in the Bible, then why does
he say that the Bible has built-in redundancy? Why is he on this
crusade against those who believe the Bible is without any error? Why
are his words contradicting his beliefs and practices?
Furthermore, if Mr Lim does truly believe he has a perfect,
infallible, and inerrant Bible in his possession today, can he kindly
produce it? With his denial of VPP, I do not think Mr Lim can produce
591
such a Bible. He does not have it. I submit to you that Mr Lims Bible
that contains no mistakes is simply non-existent, invisible and intangible.
True Biblical preservationists can confidently say they possess an
existing, visible and tangible 100% perfect Bible today without any
mistake because of Gods infallible promise to preserve His inerrant
Word throughout the ages to the last jot and tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18).
Dr Hills correctly observed that those who deny the VPP or special
providential preservation of Scripture will not be able to affirm a perfect
or an infallible and inerrant Bible today. Hills gave a very pertinent
warning against those who ignore or reject the doctrine of the special
providential preservation of Scripture:
If we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and defend
the New Testament text in the same way that we defend the texts of
other ancient books, then we are following the logic of unbelief. For the
special, providential preservation of the holy Scriptures is a fact and an
important fact. Hence when we ignore this fact and deal with the text of the
New Testament as we would with the text of other books, we are behaving
as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the providential
preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying that it is not an
important fact, not important enough to be considered when dealing with
the New Testament text. But if the providential preservation of the
Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the original
Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His
special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first
place? And if the Scriptures are not infallibly inspired, how do we know
that the Gospel message is true? And if the Gospel message is not true, how
do we know that Jesus is the Son of God?
ancient books. For the logic of this unbelieving attitude is likely to lay
hold upon us and cast us down into a bottomless pit of uncertainty. ...
592

them want to do this in a rationalistic, naturalistic way. Instead of
beginning with God, they wish to begin with facts viewed apart from
God, with details concerning the New Testament manuscripts which must
be regarded as true (so they think) no matter whether God exists or not. ...
first place? It is not sufficient therefore merely to say that you believe in
the doctrine of the special, providential preservation of holy Scriptures.
You must really believe this doctrine and allow it to guide your
thinking. You must begin with Christ and the Gospel and proceed
according to the logic of faith. This will lead you to the Traditional text,
the Textus Receptus, and the King James Version.16
Mr Lims Undermining of the KJV

Although Mr Lim says he affirms wholeheartedly with Dean Burgon
that The Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the
throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word
of it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the
Most High ..., he concludes that The King James Version is however
not so.
My Defence of the KJV
It must be clarified that any perfection, infallibility or
inerrancy that is attributed to the KJV (and for that matter all other
faithful and accurate translations of the Bible) must be understood not in
593
the direct but derived sense. Dr Timothy Tow illustrates this point well,
The original text may be likened to ginseng, and its translation ginseng
tea.17
Nevertheless, I do not think Dean Burgon would take kindly to Mr
Lims disparaging remarks against the KJV. Hear the Deans unreserved
defence of the KJV:
Our Authorised Version is the one religious link which at present binds
together ... millions of English-speaking men scattered over the earths
surface. Is it reasonable that so unutterably precious, so sacred a bond
should be endangered, for the sake of representing certain words more
accurately,here and there translating a tense with greater precision,
getting rid of a few archaisms? It may be confidently assumed that no
Revision of our Authorised Version, however judiciously executed, will
ever occupy the place of public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the
work of the Translators of 1611,the noblest literary work in the AngloSaxon language. We shall in fact never have another Authorised Version.
... As something intended to supercede our present English Bible, we
are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival Translation is not
to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it
entirely.18
Mr Lim claims to hold the KJV as reliable, trustworthy, venerable

and beloved, yet he spares no effort to attack those who defend the KJV
and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. If Mr Lim is truly supportive
of the KJV, he should be spending his time and energy doing all he can to
defend the KJV and FEBC against the attacks made by pro-Westcott/Hort
anti-preservationists of the BJU mould. Sadly, Mr Lim does the opposite.
Instead of defending his own, he does all he can to support the enemy
camp and undermine the KJV and VPP Scripture held by his pastors and
FEBC.
Mr Lims Attack on the KJV

Mr Lim says there are mistakes in the English of the KJV due to
translation errors.
My Defence of the KJV

Please note that I do not hold to Ruckmans view that the KJV is
doubly inspired or separately inspired for there is no such teaching in
the Scriptures. Many find it very convenient to hit below the belt by
misrepresenting FEBCs view of the KJV. This only goes to show that
594
their arguments are so weak that they need to resort to such underhand
blows just to get the upper hand.
Mr Lim believes there are mistakes in the English of the KJV due
to translation errors. I for one do not believe there are mistakes in the
English of the KJV. David MarshallSingapores first chief minister
who had for his English textbook the King James Bible would have
dismissed any puerile criticism of the English of the KJV. The KJV was
written in an age when the English language was at its zenith, and we
today can learn much good and high English from the KJV.
Mr Lim is quick to criticise the KJV for its translational errors,
but I would rather not be so conceited and trigger-happy to criticise the
KJV translation of the Holy Scriptures. Please know that the King James
translators were extremely careful in their translation of Gods Word, and
they have used at least one correct word, and at least one correct rule of
grammar in their rendering of the inspired and preserved original
language Scriptures. That is why We uphold the Authorised (King
James) Version to be the Word of Godthe best, most faithful, most
accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible in the English language,
and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural text in the public
reading, preaching, and teaching of the Bible (Article 4.2.1.2 of the
FEBC Constitution which was unanimously passed by her Board of
Directors on December 29, 2003). We agree with the Dean Burgon
Society that we can without apology hold up the Authorised Version of
1611 and say This is the Word of God! while at the same time realising
that, in some verses, we must go back to the underlying original language
Texts for complete clarity, and also compare Scripture with Scripture
(Articles of Faith, Section II.A).
Dr Hills had wisely advised, We must be very cautious therefore
about finding errors in the text of the King James Version, and the same
holds true also in the realm of translation. Whenever the renderings of the
King James Version are called in question, it is usually the accuser that
finds himself in the wrong.19
Mr Lims Malicious Accusation

Mr Lim accused me of being divisive, and self promoting ...
Brethren are falsely attacked, and the unity of our churches affected.
595
My Reply
Mr Lims charge against me is both unjust and unjustifiable. His
words against me are malicious. His senior pastor graciously gave him a
chance to retract his statements but he refused. When publicly disciplined
by his senior pastor and his pastor, instead of showing remorse he
threatened them with a lawsuit. I believe Mr Lim owes his pastors and me
an apology.
Bottom Line
The Bible is the Christians sole and supreme authority of faith and
practice. My faith in the present perfection of Scripture is based on the
Biblical doctrine of Gods infallible preservation of His forever inerrant
Word as taught in Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, and many other passages in the
Bible.
What is Mr Lims faith based on? On which book, chapter, and
verse does Mr Lim base his doctrine of the non-VPP, imperfect, and
partial preservation of Scripture? Is Mr Lim asking us to trust him and his
scholarly judgement that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible today? I
rather trust in my infallible and inerrant Lord and Saviour who has
promised to preserve His infallible and inerrant words. I trust no man but
the Lord Jesus Christ who died for our sins according to the scriptures;
and ... was buried, and ... rose again the third day according to the
scriptures (1 Cor 15:3-4).
It is never safe to trust in fallible men and their errant-prone
commentaries, especially when their beliefs and judgements go against
the clear teachings of the infallible and inerrant Word of God. We follow
men and their comments only if and when they follow and agree with
Christ and His words (1 Cor 11:1). I place my complete trust in Christ
and Him alone, and I trust only the BibleHis Wordwhich I believe is
not only perfect in the past (in the inerrant God-breathed Hebrew and
Greek words of the autographs) but also perfect today (in the infallibly
preserved Hebrew and Greek words of the apographs underlying the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV).
I appreciate the faithful and courageous words of Dr Paisley who
believes that
this English Authorised Version is unsurpassably pre-eminent over and
above all other English translations, ... I cry out There is none like that,
give it me, and in so doing I nail the Satanic lie that the Authorised
596

Version is outdated, outmoded, mistranslated, a relic of the past and
only defended by stupid, unlearned, untaught obscurantists. ...
I believe this Book will always be the unsurpassable pre-eminent English
version of the Holy Bible and no other can every take its place. To seek to
imposter - a pretender - a usurper.20
Dear friends, it is not enough just to believe and defend the VPI of
Scripture, we must also believe and defend the VPP of Scripture with all
our faith and with all our might with Gods help. If we do not, the
Biblical foundation of our Christian faith will be swept away by the
destructive forces of unbelief and apostasy. If the foundations be
destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps 11:3). Absolutely nothing! We
would have no good news to preach to a lost world so in need of Jesus
Christ our Lord and Saviour if He is not absolutely truthful in His
promises, and if His words are not forever infallible and inerrant. We
would also be exposed to the dangers of liberalism, postmodernism,
ecumenism, neo-evangelicalism, and new heresies like open-theism and
neo-deism.
Faith is the key to spiritual understanding. We believe in order to
see. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God
(Rom 10:17). But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them
that diligently seek him (Heb 11:6). Do not trust in the weak words of
fallible men; but in the very powerful and ever perfect words of the Holy
Scriptures, infallible and inerrant, 100% inspired and 100% preserved by
its almighty Authorthe Lord Jesus Christwho is the same yesterday,
today and for ever (Heb 13:8). We have an immutable God who has
given to us an indestructible Word.
He who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matt 11:15).
Notes
Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword: The English Authorised
Version (KJV), (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997), 102-3, emphasis mine.
2
Ibid, 106.
3
Quek Suan Yew, Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?: Interpreting
Psalm 12:6-7, The Burning Bush (2004): 96-98.
4
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 1:106; see also my paper, Sola Autographa
1
597

or Sola Apographa? A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy
Scriptures, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
5
George Skariah, The Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of the
Holy Scriptures, unpublished Doctor of Theology dissertation, Far Eastern Bible
College, Singapore, 2005.
6
Jeffrey Khoo, Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical
Preservation, The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 82-97.
7
Jeffrey Khoo, Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of From the
Mind of God to the Mind of Man, The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-34, and The
Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or Yea Hath God Said?,
The Burning Bush (2004):2-47.
8
Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines:
Christian Research Press, 1984), 192.
9
Ibid.
10
A E Houseman, The Application of Thought to Textual Criticism, in
Selected Prose, ed J Carter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961),
131-2.
11
Quoted by David Alan Black, ed, Rethinking New Testament Textual
Criticism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 50.
12
Timothy Tow, My Glory Will I Not Give to Another, The Burning Bush
11 (July 2005): 67-68.
13
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible (Wilmington:
Sovereign Grace, 1972), 1:798, emphasis mine.
14
15
David W Torrance and Thomas F Torrance, eds, Calvins New Testament
Commentaries: A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, trans A W
Morrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 1:292.
16
Edward F Hills, Believing Bible Study (Des Moines: Christian Research
Press, 1977), 216-20, emphasis mine.
17
Cited in Jeffrey Khoo, KJV: Questions and Answers (Singapore: Bible
Witness Literature, 2003), 8
18
John William Burgon, Revision Revised (Collingswood: Dean Burgon
Society, 2d printing, 2000), 113-114, emphasis mine.
19
Hills, Believing Bible Study , 83.
20
Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword , 10-11, emphasis mine.
598
53
CONTENDING IN TRUTH, AND TRUTH AFFIRMS
THE VPP OF SCRIPTURE
A Loving Response to Rev ___s Paper Contending in
Truth and in Love
Jeffrey Khoo
Revised Edition, October 3, 2005
Preamble
Rev ___ of ___ Church has written a response to Carol Lees paper
A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation
published in the July 2005 issue of The Burning Bush. Since I am the
editor of The Burning Bush, and since Rev ___ did quote me in a number
of places on pages 1 and 5 of his paper, I believe I have the right of reply,
and wish to do so in truth and love as suggested by his title.
Before I proceed, I must commend Rev ___ for believing that
(1) the King James Bible is the English Bible par excellence, and
that we should
(2) unite to defend the Word of God against its real foes
represented by the modern day Bible perversions (p11).
Praise the Lord!
Rev ___s Questions

Rev ___ asks,
(1) Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian who
believes in the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo but not hold to VPP as a
doctrine?
believes in the doctrine of a literal six-day creation but not VPP?
599

believes in the doctrines of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection and
ascension of our blessed Saviour but not VPP?
believes in the doctrine of a literal heaven and hell but not VPP?
(5) Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian and not
subscribe to the theory of VPP?
My Reply
Let me answer Rev ___s questions with the following questions:
believes in the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, and a literal six-day
creation, and yet DENIES that the first three chapters of Genesis are
verbally and plenarily inspired and verbally and plenarily preserved, and
hence infallible and inerrant, without any mistake?
believes in the doctrines of the virgin birth, bodily resurrection and
ascension of our blessed Saviour and yet DENIES that the Christian
today possesses each and every one of the verbally and plenarily inspired
words that tell us of our Lords virgin birth, bodily resurrection and
ascension?
believes in the doctrine of a literal heaven and hell which he has yet to
see WITHOUT believing that the very words that tell him about a literal
heaven and hell are totally inspired and entirely preserved, and hence
presently infallible and inerrant without any mistake, and therefore
completely true and trustworthy?
(4) Can one be a God-fearing and God-honouring Christian today by
believing that his Bible today contains mistakes because God did not
infallibly preserve His inspired words to the last word, to the last letter,
even to the last syllable as taught in Matthew 5:18, and 24:35?
I trust the above questions answer the questions posed by Rev ___.
Is Faith Based on the Words of Men or the Words of God?

Rev ___ rejects the VPP of Scripture on the basis of the words of
certain God-fearing and God-honouring Christians with the assumption
600
Contending in Truth, and Truth Affirms the VPP of Scripture
that they had indeed rejected the VPP of Scripture, or that they actually
believed:
(1) that God did not infallibly preserve His words,
(2) that God did allow some of His inspired words to be utterly lost
and completely corrupted without any hope of restoration,
(3) that God took a hands off approach to the preservation of His
inspired words and did not care at all to intervene in history to correct the
intentional or unintentional mistakes the scribes made as they copied the
Scriptures so as to restore for His people all of His inspired words and
identify for them where His inspired words are precisely.
Rev ___ went on to argue, The fact is that, over the ages, there
had been God-fearing and God-honouring Christians who believe in the
plenary verbal inspiration of the Word of God and not the VPP. Surely,
Rev ___ must know that our supreme and final authority of faith and
doctrine is none other than the Bible itself and the Bible alone, and not
man (B-P Constitution, article 4.2.1).
In light of this, can Rev ___ please prove his non-VPP view from
the Bible itself? That the Bible does not at all teach Gods infallible
preservation of all of His inspired and inerrant words to the jot and tittle,
and that Gods people (including us today) can be sure that we have the
very words of God in our hands, 100%?
Rev ___ cited a host of God-fearing and God-honouring men to
prove his point. Let it be known that we do not deny that Turretin, Baxter,
Owen, Wesley, Gill, Spurgeon, and Burgon were indeed God-fearing
and God-honouring men, but let us ask again, does their being Godfearing and God-honouring mean that their words are infallible and
inerrant, and that they were incapable of making mistakes in their
comments and observations?
Our faith must not be based on the words of men but purely on
the inspired words of God which we have today by virtue of Gods many
promises to preserve His forever inspired, infallible and inerrant words.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled (Matt 5:18).
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away
(Matt 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33).
601
Let it be known once for all that in our defence of the KJV, and the
VPP of Scripture, we do not question the salvation of these illustrious
men.
Nevertheless, let it be stated without equivocation that our faith is
hardly based on these men, but only on the Lord Jesus Christ, and on His
forever infallible and inerrant words as cited above.
My Interaction with the Godly Men Rev ___ Cited

Now let me interact with the comments of those whom Rev ___
cited in support of his anti-VPP position. Let me deal with all of them
one by one, point by point.
Richard Baxter (1615-1691)
Rev ___ wrote: Baxter was the beloved pastor of Kidderminster.
He warned of two extremes: On one end are those who deny the divinity
of the Word of God. These, Baxter writes give too little to the Scripture
who deny it to be indicted by inspiration of the infallible Spirit of God,
and be wholly true.
My Response: We agree with Baxters affirmation of the divine
nature of Gods Word, and that we should not take the Word of God
lightly, but consider the words of Scripture to be inspiration of the
infallible Spirit of God, and be wholly true.
Rev ___ said: At the other end are those give too much (in bulk,
but too little in virtue) to the Scripture, and included in this group are
those that say that God hath so preserved the Scripture, as that there are
no various readings and doubtful texts thereupon, and that no written or
printed copies have been corrupted. . . . All these err in over-doing. (A
Christian Directory, p. 724-5).
My Response: Obviously Baxter was not denying that every Godbreathed word of the Sacred Scriptures to the last iota has been preserved
(the doctrine of VPP). He was simply making a true observation that
there are various readings and doubtful texts. No one who knows and
understands VPP denies that there are various readings in the copies,
but the correct reading has always been preserved, and has been
identified from the multitude of faithful manuscripts, and through the
successive editions of the Textus Receptus as the Lord guided His
servants (from Erasmus, to Stephanus, then Beza, and finally the King
James men) to restore or identify for us the true reading of the Greek NT.
602
Neither do we deny that there are doubtful texts which I am sure Baxter
would agree are the corrupt Alexandrian, Westcott-Hort or critical texts
that underlie the modern perversions (in Rev ___s own words) of the
Bible.
John Owen (1616-1683)
Rev ___ wrote: Owen was a pastor, preacher and vice-chancellor
of Oxford University. He was described by one biographer as the
greatest British theologian of all time. He wrote, the whole Scripture,
entire as given out from God, without any loss, is preserved in the copies
[not one particular copy] of the originals yet remaining; what varieties
there are among the copies themselves shall be afterward declared. In
them all, we say, is every letter and tittle of the word.
My Response: Again we do not deny what Owen had said, and I
would urge you to read my paper, John Owen on the Perfect Bible, The
Burning Bush (July 2004): 74-85, and see how Owen affirms in no
uncertain terms the present perfection of Scripture. Many fundamentalists
today (like those from BJU) say that God has not preserved His words,
but only His message, or truth, or doctrine, but Owen surely objects to
this false view of providential preservation. Owen clearly believed in the
preservation of the words of Scripture (ie, verbal preservation), not just
the doctrines (ie, conceptual preservation), for he wrote, Nor is it
enough to satisfy us, that the doctrines mentioned are preserved entire;
every tittle and iota in the Word of God must come under our care and
consideration, as being, as such, from God. As quoted by Rev ___
above, Owen affirmed, the whole Scripture, entire as given out from
God [ie, plenary preservation], without any loss [of any of the words] is
preserved [ie, verbal preservation].
Rev ___ went on to quote Owen concerning translations, These
copies, we say, are the rule, standard, and touchstone of all translations,
ancient or modern, by which they are in all things to be examined, tried,
corrected, amended; and themselves only by themselves. Translations
contain the word of God, and are the word of God, perfectly or
imperfectly, according as they express the words, sense, and meaning of
those originals.
My Response: Praise the Lord! Amen and Amen! On what basis
do we examine, try, correct and amend our translations today? It is by
these copies [ie, apographs] which are the rule, standard, and
603
touchstone of all translations [whether English, Chinese, Korean, French

or German, etc], ancient [eg, the Septuagint, or LXX] or modern [eg,
NIV, NASV, RSV, TEV, ESV, CEV, TLB etc]. Translations are the
Word of God, and may be deemed the perfect Word of God [ie, in the
derivative sense] only if they express the words, sense, and meaning of
those originals [ie, the original language ScripturesHebrew, Aramaic,
and Greekwhich God has inspired and preserved].
Rev ___ continued to quote Owen, To advance any, all
translations concurring, into an equality with the originals - so to set them
by it as to set them up with it on even terms - much more to propose and
use them as means of castigating, amending, altering any thing in them,
gathering various lections by them, is to set up an altar of our own by the
altar of God, and to make equal the wisdom, care, skill, and diligence of
men, with the wisdom, care, and providence of God himself. (The
Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text of Scripture, Works of
John Owen, Volume 16. AGES Library).
My Response: Again, praise the Lord! Amen, Amen, and Amen!
No translation (not even the KJV can be more inspired than, or as
inspired as the original language (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek)
Scriptures. As such we must never use a translation or a version (not even
the KJV, not to mention the NIV, NASV, RSV etc, and certainly not the
LXX, a Greek translation of the Hebrew OT) to castigate, amend, or
alter the original language Scriptures which we see the liberals, neoevangelicals and neo-fundamentalists do in such places as Psalm 12:7,
Judges 18:30, 1 Samuel 13:1, 2 Chronicles 22:2 etc.
John Wesley (1703-1791)
Rev ___ wrote, Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church.
In his Explanatory Notes to the New Testament, he writes, I write chiefly
for plain, unlettered men, who understand only their mother tongue
[English], and yet reverence and love the word of God, and have a desire
to save their souls. In order to assist these in such a measure as I am able,
I design, first, to set down the text itself, for the most part, in the common
English translation [which in Wesleys time was the King James Bible],
which is in general (so far as I can judge) abundantly the best that I have
seen. Yet I do not say, it is incapable of being brought, in several places,
nearer to the original.
604
My Response: I am thankful for Wesleys promotion of the KJV

which he said was the best among all the other Reformation versions
(Tyndales, Coverdales, Matthews, Great, Geneva, Bishops), and indeed
still is the best. Since a translation remains a translation, with limitations
in the translated tongue, there is a need, even for those who believe the
KJV to be the best English translation available, to go back to original
language Scriptures betimes to get the fulness of meaning and for clarity.
This we do not deny, but rather affirm.
Wesley was quoted as saying Neither will I affirm that the Greek
copies from which this translation was made are always the most
correct. (The Complete Works of John Wesley, Volume 14. AGES
Library).
My Response: Without the context, it is premature for me to judge
what Wesley meant by what he said. But even at face value, this
statement does not reveal to us anything about Wesleys view of Biblical
preservation, that he denied the verbal and plenary preservation of the
words of Scripture (according to Matt 5:18), or that he believed some of
Gods inspired words have been lost and no longer in existence.
John Gill (1697-1771)
Rev ___ quoted Gill concerning inspiration and translations:
Gill was a Baptist pastor. He was a contemporary of Wesley and George
Whitefield. He says that divine inspiration is to be understood of the
Scriptures, as in the original languages in which they were written, and
not of translations; unless it could be thought, that the translators of the
Bible into each of the languages of the nations into which it has been
translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were
directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by;
but this is not reasonable to suppose.
My Response: I agree with Gill totally. That has been my
contention all along, that the inspired Scriptures must be understood in
terms of the original languages (as stated in Article 4.2.1 of our B-P
Constitution) and not the translated languages whether English, Chinese,
Indonesian, Korean, Thai etc. We have never endorsed (in fact we
strenuously reject) the view of Peter Ruckman (who incidentally earned
his PhD from BJU) that the King James translators were inspired in
their translation, and that the KJV is more inspired than its underlying
original language Scriptures. I hereby enjoin all VPP opponents to cease
605
and desist from hitting below the belt. To score points by lumping us
together with Ruckman would certainly be a violation of the 9 th
commandment (Exod 20:16).
Rev ___ went on to say, On the differences between the various
Greek texts and the various translations, Gill says, Let not now any be
uneasy in their minds about translations on this account, because they are
not upon an equality with the original text, and especially about our own;
for as it has been the will of God, and appears absolutely necessary that
so it should be, that the Bible should be translated into different
languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may receive benefit
by it; He has taken care, in his providence, to raise up men capable of
such a performance, in various nations, and particularly in ours; for
whenever a set of men have been engaged in this work, as were in our
nation, men well skilled in the languages, and partakers of the grace of
God; of sound principles, and of integrity and faithfulness, having the
fear of God before their eyes; they have never failed of producing a
translation worthy of acceptation; and in which, though they have
mistook some words and phrases, and erred in some lesser and lighter
matters; yet not so as to affect any momentous article of faith or practice;
and therefore such translations as ours may be regarded as the rule of
faith. (A Body of Doctrinal Divinity, Book 1, Chapter 2. AGES Library).
My Response: I am unable to see Rev ___s point as regards the
various Greek texts that he thinks Gill is saying for Gill does not deal
with the various Greek texts in the above quotation at all, but that the
translations are not as perfect as the original text, but nonetheless
worthy of acceptation if they have been translated by faithful men who
are well skilled in the [biblical] languages, who are partakers of the
grace of God [ie, born again], who have the fear of God before their
eyes. That translations or versions could possibly err because God did
not breathe out English words or Chinese words or any translated
words, but the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words, we agree
with Gill, but there is nothing here in Gill that tells us that he denies
VPP.
Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
Rev ___ wrote of Spurgeon: Spurgeon was the pastor of the
London Metropolitan Tabernacle. He is also known was [sic] the Prince
of Preachers and the last of the Puritans. In a sermon titled The Bible
606
Tried and Proved based on Psalm 12:6, Spurgeon said, I do not hesitate
to say that I believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy
Scriptures from beginning to end.
My Response: What a wonderful statement by Spurgeon who used
Psalm 12:6 to argue that the Bible is tried and proved (and may I add
that this is so precisely because God has promised to keep and preserve
His words as stated in the next verse, verse 7). I affirm with Spurgeon: I
believe that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures
from beginning to end [from Genesis to Revelation, from beginning
till now].
Spurgeon says, There may be, and there are, mistakes of
translation; for translators are not inspired. (The Metropolitan Tabernacle
Pulpit. Vol. 35. AGES Library).
My Response: This we do not deny. There are very many mistakes
in the modern versions because of their use of the false text (WestcottHort Text) and their use of the wrong method of translation (dynamic
equivalency). As far as the KJV is concerned, we take it to be the very
Word of God in English, and hence do not think there are any mistakes
in it because it was translated (1) on the basis of the true and complete
text, and (2) by means of the verbal equivalence or word-for-word
method (which is in keeping to the doctrines of VPI and VPP).
Rev ___ wrote: Spurgeon generally preached from the King James
Bible, but it may surprise some VPP proponents that he did not hesitate to
use other versions and readings from older manuscripts when he found it
helpful. Case in point, Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled And We
Are: A Jewel from the Revised Version based on 1 John 3:1. That threeword addition (and we are) in the Revised Version, according to
Spurgeon is correct, I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities
upon which we depend - those manuscripts which are best worthy of
notice - have these words; and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the
Alexandrian, and several other versions. They ought never to have
dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned, and those best to be
relied on, these are veritable words of inspiration. (The Metropolitan
Tabernacle Pulpit. Vol. 32. AGES Library).
My Response: I strongly object to Spurgeons endorsement of
the Revised Version of Westcott and Hort (which is the progenitor of
607
all the modern perversions in the market today). Now, I have some
questions for Rev ___:
(1) Is he supportive of Westcott and Hort? Does he adopt the
Westcott-Hort theory that the Alexandrian manuscripts are better since
they contain older readings?
(2) Is he saying that it is helpful to use the modern perversions since
Spurgeon also did so and found them helpful?
(3) On page 11 of his paper, Rev ___ calls on us to unite to defend
the Word of God against its real foes represented by the modern day
Bible perversions. If so, why is he contradicting himself at this juncture
by endorsing the Revised Version, the Westcott-Hort text, and say that it
is useful and helpful to consult the other versions and older Alexandrian
manuscripts which are decidedly corrupt?
I must categorically state (lest I be misunderstood) that I do not
believe at all that Rev ___ is speaking hypocritically (as an ___ graduate,
he is surely a cut above the so-called fundamentalist scholars from BJU
who wrote against the KJV and VPP of Scripture, who say one thing, but
mean something else), but I cannot help but think that he is confused.
John William Burgon (1813-1888)
Rev ___ cited Burgon: Burgon is popularly known in BP circles as
Dean Burgon. Burgon rightly took a strong stand against the inferior
textual methods and erroneous presumptions of Brook Foss Westcott
(1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892). Burgon was
right in disagreeing with Westcott and Hort on the weight that they
ascribed to a few but older manuscripts. Burgon is correct: Age of the
manuscript does not equate to its quality.
My response: I am very glad that Rev ___ takes a strong stand with
Burgon against the false textual critical method of Westcott and Hort that
the few but older manuscripts are bad and must be rejected. In light of
this, he should disagree with Spurgeons view of the Revised Version and
the so-called older manuscripts (since he, like Burgon, believes that
older doesnt mean better).
Rev ___ went on to point out: However, on the Received Text,
Burgon states categorically, Once for all, we request it may be clearly
understood that we do not, by any means, claim perfection [emphasis
Burgons] for the Received Text. We entertain no extravagant notions on
608
this subject. Again and again we shall have occasion to point out . . . that
the Textus Receptus needs correction. We do but insist, (1) that it is an
incomparably better text . . . infinitely preferable to the New Greek Text
of the Revisionists. And (2) That to be improved, the Textus Receptus
will have to be revised on entirely different principles from those who
are just now in fashion. (The Revision Revised, footnote on p. 21).
Burgon was not averse to revising the Textus Receptus, meaning to say
that he did not hold the Textus Receptus to be perfect and on par with the
autographs.
My Response: We are thankful to the Lord for Dean Burgon for a
number of reasons: (1) Burgon was a defender of the Byzantine or
Majority Text which he called the Traditional Text over against the
Alexandrian or Minority Text of Westcott and Hort which he viewed as
the Corrupted Text and rightly so. (2) Burgon was a strong defender for
the KJV and spoke against any revision of it. Although Burgon defended
the KJV in no uncertain terms, there was a weakness in his defence of it.
It is unfortunate that Burgon did not defend the Textus Receptusthe
Greek Text underlying the KJVas strongly as he did the KJV. That is
the reason why he disparagingly spoke of the need to revise the TR.
Why did Burgon have such a relatively low view of the Textus
Receptus? Dr E F Hillsa friend and classmate of Dr McIntire at
Westminster, a ThD graduate of Harvard, and a Presbyterian defender of
the Textus Receptusmade an astute observation. He noted that Burgon
was biased against the Textus Receptus because of his extreme
Anglicanism which believes in the doctrine of apostolic succession. Dr
Hills rightly commented that Burgons mistaken Anglican view of
apostolic succession and emphasis on the NT quotations of the Bishops
or Church Fathers failed him when he came to deal with the printed
Greek New Testament text. For from Reformation times down to his own
day the printed Greek New Testament text which had been favored by the
bishops of the Anglican Church was the Textus Receptus, and the Textus
Receptus had not been prepared by bishops but by Erasmus, who was an
independent scholar. Still worse, from Burgons standpoint, was the fact
that the particular form of the Textus Receptus used in the Church of
England was the third edition of Stephanus, who was a Calvinist. For
these reasons, therefore, Burgon and Scrivener looked askance at the
Textus Receptus and declined to defend it except in so far as it agreed
with the Traditional Text found in the majority of the Greek New
609
Testament manuscripts (Edward F Hills, The King James Version

Defended [Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984], 192).
Dr Hills went on to say that Burgons approach to identifying the
preserved text is illogical. Hills wrote: If we believe in the
providential preservation of the New Testament text, then we must
defend the Textus Receptus as well as the Traditional Text found in the
majority of the Greek manuscripts. For the Textus Receptus is the only
form in which this Traditional Text has circulated in print. To decline to
defend the Textus Receptus is to give the impression that Gods
providential preservation of the New Testament text ceased with the
invention of printing. It is to suppose that God, having preserved a pure
New Testament text all during the manuscript period, unaccountably left
this pure text hiding in the manuscripts and allowed an inferior text to
issue from the printing press and circulate among His people for more
than 450 years. Much, then, as we admire Burgon for his general
orthodoxy and for his defense of the Traditional New Testament Text, we
cannot follow him in his high Anglican emphasis or in his disregard for
the Textus Receptus (Ibid).
Rev ___ concluded by saying, He [Burgon] only insisted, and
rightly so, that any revision of the Textus Receptus must be done using
the principles of Higher Criticism [sic].
My Response: Higher Criticism?!! Rev ___ must be mistaken!
Burgon did not advocate Higher Criticism (Read Burgons Inspiration
and Interpretation). Let me say again that although we admire Burgon for
his defence of the KJV, we do not follow him blindly in his relatively low
view of the Textus Receptus.
Francis Turretin (1612-1687)
Rev ___ was extremely vague on what Turretin said about
contradictions in the Bible. Rev ___ seems to give the impression that
Turretin actually believes that there are real contradictions in the Bible
citing his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, volume I, page 71.
My Response: Well I checked, and the words real contradictions
did not appear at all in Turretin (at least not in the place cited). Let me
quote Turretin, in the same volume and on the same page, and you can
see for yourself that Turretin denied any contradictions in the Bible.
Now read carefully Turretin; he wrote, Unless unimpaired integrity
characterize the Scriptures, they could not be regarded as the sole rule of
610
faith and practice, and the door would be thrown wide open to atheists,
libertines, enthusiasts, and other profane persons like them for destroying
its authenticity (authentian) and overthrowing the foundation of
salvation. For since nothing false can be an object of faith, how could the
Scriptures be held as authentic and reckoned divine if liable to
contradictions and corruptions? [Anyone who can read English can see
that this is a rhetorical question, expecting a negative answerTurretin
denies that there are any contradictions or corruptions in the
Scriptures!]
Now, if we read page 70 of Turretins Theology, we find him
vigorously denying that there are any real contradictions in the
Scriptures. Turretin wrote, Finally, others defend the integrity of the
Scriptures and say that these various contradictions are only apparent,
not real and true; that certain passages are hard to be understood
(dysnoeta), but not altogether inexplicable (alyta). This is the more
common opinion of the orthodox, which we follow as safer and truer.
This has all along been the primary contention and constant plea of VPP
advocates in defending our Perfect Bible.
Rev ___ quoted Turretin at length, and I am thankful that he
quoted Turretins understanding of what original texts mean. Rev ___
wrote, On the purity of the sources, this question is asked, Have the
original texts of the Old and New Testaments come down to us pure and
uncorrupted? Turretin first defines what he means by the original texts.
By the original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the
hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not
now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set
forth to us the Word of God in the very words of those who wrote under
the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
My Emphasis: Take note that when Turretin (and for that matter,
the reformers) spoke of the original texts which are pure and
uncorrupted, he was not referring to the non-existent autographs but
the apographs (ie, copies) which set forth to us the Word of God in
the very words of those who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit. How can Turretin affirm this if God did not preserve every single
one of His inspired words perfectly without any loss of any word
whatsoever? To surmise that Turretin did not believe that God has indeed
preserved entirely and fully His inspired words to the last jot and tittle
611
(VPP) is to run counter to Turretins explanation of the providential

preservation of the Scriptures.
Now, in discussing Turretin there is a need to realise that he
addressed doctrinal concerns in the 17th century when the issue primarily
concerned the doctrine of salvation, and not the doctrine of the Scriptures
as we know it todayin the 21st centurywith the introduction of
Westcott-Hort and the many modern perversions. It is not unreasonable to
assume that for this reason, Turretin was unable to see the need to push
the doctrine of the VPP of Scripture to its logical conclusion. It was not
his battle, it is ours!
As regards the perfection of versions, I am glad that Rev ___
quoted Turretins view that a Bible version can be considered perfect
but only in another senseie, in the derived sense, for all versions are
the streams; the original text [apographs] is the fountain whence they
flow. The latter is the rule, the former the thing ruled, ... There is one
perfection of things and truth to which nothing can be added and from
which nothing can be taken away; another perfection of the version itself
... Such perfection is the word carried over into the versions. The latter is
a human work and therefore liable to error and correction - to which
indeed authority can belong, but only human (according to the fidelity
and conformity with the original text), but not divine. (Institutes of
Elenctic Theology, Volume 1, p. 126). So, it is not wrong to say that the
KJV is perfect, but it must be understood in the derived senseinsofar
as it accurately translates the original. This I made clear in my booklet
KJV: Questions and Answers, page 8.
G I Williamson
Rev ___ wrote, GI Williamsons commentary on the Westminster
Confession of Faith is used (endnote, p.80). Presumably, Williamsons
commentary was used here because proponents of VPP have used his
work to support the VPP theory (see Dr Jeffrey Khoos KJV: Questions
and Answers, p. 23).
Well, what did I say in KJV: Questions & Answers, page 23? Let
me quote in full:
(23) What does the Westminster Confession of Faith mean by
the words, kept pure in all ages?
Here is an answer from Prof William F Orr of Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary: this affirms that the Hebrew text of the Old
612
Testament and the Greek of the New which was known to the
identical with the first text that God had kept pure in all the ages. The
Confession of Faith.
G I Williamson likewise did write to this effect in his commentary
on the Westminster Confession, This brings us to the matter of Gods
singular care and providence by which He has kept pure in all ages
this original text, so that we now actually possess it in authentical form.
And let us begin by giving an illustration from modern life to show that
an original document may be destroyed, without the text of that document
being lost. Suppose you were to write a will. Then suppose you were to
have a photographic copy of that will made. If the original were then
destroyed, the photographic copy would still preserve the text of that will
exactly the same as the original itself. The text of the copy would differ
in no way whatever from the original, and so it would possess exactly the
same truth and meaning as the original. Now of course photography was
not invented until long after the original copy ... had been worn out or
lost. How then could the original text of the Word of God be preserved?
The answer is that God preserved it by His own remarkable care and
providence.
Rev ___ wrote that in two separate e-mails, Williamson, a retired
Presbyterian minister wrote to clarify his views, and I have noted what
Williamson had said way back in 2002 when a couple of my students
wrote against me, and misrepresented me (which they subsequently
retracted in a signed statement).
Let me just say that what Williamson wrote in his book speaks for
itself (res ipsa loquitur). Let me also say that Williamson did not deny
that the words of Scripture are verbally and plenarily preserved (for that
would be disastrous, and would contradict what he himself had written in
his book). He simply wrote, I do not believe that it [Textus Receptus] is
quite equal to a photocopy of the autographa [though he qualified his
statement by saying that he has great respect for the Textus Receptus].
It is also important to note that although he does not believe that the TR
is an exact replica [as caricatured] of the autographs, yet he was careful
to point out that the foundation of the argument for the superiority of the
TR is the doctrine of divine providence (which is precisely the argument
613
of Dr Waite in Chapter 1 of his bookDefending the King James Bible:

A Fourfold Superiority).
But the fundamental Baptists of BJU say they believe in
providence and yet deny the TR in favour of WH. How will Rev ___
reconcile this with Williamsons equation of the Textus Receptus with the
doctrine of providence? I should think that Rev ___ should be picking on
BJU instead of FEBC. May I also point out that Williamsons halfhearted commitment to the TR may be due to his preference for the
NKJV and possibly the so-called Majority Text edited by Hodges and
Farstad. If so, Williamson would find himself in disharmony with the
Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) with which ___ BPC (and FEBC) finds
herself more in alignment. As such I should think that Rev ___ should be
siding with FEBC and TBS than with Williamson and the NKJV (which
the TBS has ably critiqued as an inferior version to the good old KJV).
But perhaps Rev ___ was ignorant of this? At any rate, the final analysis
is this: Although Williamson does not uphold the TR as much as we do,
he did not deny in any way that God has indeed preserved His words to
the last jot and tittle, without any words lost (as seen in his excellent
photocopy illustration) which is the doctrine of VPP.
Definition of VPP
What does VPP mean? Verbal means every word to the jot and
tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18). Plenary means the Scripture as a whole
with all the words intact (Matt 24:35, 1 Pet 1:25). So VPP means the
whole of Scripture with all its words even to the jot and tittle is perfectly
preserved by God without any loss of the original words, prophecies,
promises, commandments, doctrines, and truths, not only in the words of
salvation, but also the words of history, geography and science. Every
book, every chapter, every verse, every word, every syllable, every letter
is by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages (WCF I:8).
What and where are the preserved words of God today? They are the
inspired OT Hebrew/Aramaic words and NT Greek words the prophets,
the apostles, the church fathers, the reformers used which are today found
in the long and continuously abiding or preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek words underlying the Reformation Bibles best represented by the
KJV, and NOT in those corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts and critical
Westcott-Hort texts underlying the modern versions which the church had
614
seen fit to reject for all these millennia but revived by modern ecumenists
and compromisers in these last days of apostasy.
Basically, those who hold to the VPP of Scripture believe and
embrace the following tenets:
(1) God has supernaturally preserved each and every one of His
inspired Hebrew/Aramaic OT words and Greek NT words to the last jot
and tittle, so that in every age, Gods people will always have in their
possession His infallible and inerrant Word kept intact without the loss of
any word (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John
10:35).
(2) The providential preservation of Scriptures is understood as
Gods special and not general providence. Special providence or
providentia extraordinaria speaks of Gods miraculous intervention in
the events of history and in the affairs of mankind in fulfilment of His
sovereign will for the sake of His elect and to the glory of His Name. The
divine preservation of the Canon (books) and Text (words) of Scripture
comes under Gods special providence.
(3) The Bible is not only perfect (ie, infallible and inerrant) in the
past (in the Autographs), but also perfect today (in the Apographs).
(4) The infallible and inerrant words of Scripture are found in the
faithfully preserved Traditional/Byzantine/Majority manuscripts, and
fully represented in the Printed and Received Text (ie, Textus Receptus)
that underlie the Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV, and
NOT in the corrupted and rejected texts of Westcott and Hort that
underlie the many modern versions of the English Bible like the NIV,
NASV, ESV, RSV, TEV, CEV, TLB etc.
(5) There are no mistakes in the Bible, period. There are no mistakes
or errors (scribal or otherwise) in such OT passages as Judges 18:30, 1
Samuel 13:1, 1 Kings 4:26, 1 Chronicles 18:3, 2 Chronicles 22:2 etc. If
there are discrepancies in the Bible, the discrepancies are only
seeming or apparent, NOT real or actual. Any inability to understand or
explain such difficult passages in no way negates the infallibility and
inerrancy of the Scriptures, applying the faithful Pauline principle of
biblical interpretation: let God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
(6) Knowing where the perfect Bible is is a matter of textual
recognition and NOT textual criticism. In the field of textual recognition,
Burgon is good, Hills is better, Waite is best.
615
(7) The Chinese Union Version (CUV) is the Word of God for the
Chinese people today since it is the best, most faithful, most reliable, and
most accurate version among the Chinese versions presently available.
Great care ought to be taken not to undermine our Chinese brethrens
confidence in the CUV. Nevertheless, versions or translations are never
superior to the inspired and preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
Scriptures; thus there is a need to consult these original language
Scriptures for clarity and fulness of meaning, and to compare Scripture
with Scripture.
Rev ___ has taken no oath, but I have taken an oath that the Bible
is perfect without any mistake. I will not bow to any pressure nor be
cowered by any threat to force me to agree that the Holy Scriptures which
I have in my hands today are imperfect or contain mistakes. I fear God
and His judgement, not man and his criticisms. I seek the approval of
God, not the popularity of men.
I pray that Rev ___ and all FEBC alumni would stand fast
together with their alma mater on the sole and final authority of the
forever infallible and inerrant words of God, in one spirit, with one
mind striving together for the faith of the gospel (Phil 1:27). Soli Deo
Gloria!
616
54
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAR EASTERN BIBLE
COLLEGE, THE REFORMED FAITH, AND
THE REFORMATION BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
Preamble
A so-called Truth website has launched an incredible offensive
against the Far Eastern Bible College with this allegation:
The Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) has abandoned the historic reformed
faith for KJV-onlyism and the verbal plenary preservation (VPP) of
scripture. They teach that the Greek and Hebrew texts were miraculously
restored by the KJV translators in 1611 to be word-for-word identical with
the original manuscripts (autographa). Consequently, the FEBC has
inadvertently joined the Charismatic movement in promoting progressive
revelation and post-canonical inspiration.
Let me rebut this craftily-worded statement aimed at maligning not

just FEBC, but also the Biblical and reformed doctrine of VPP and the
faithful defence of the Reformation Bible (the KJV and its underlying
inspired words in the original languages) over against the many neoevangelical and ecumenical modern English versions that are based on
the corrupt Westcott-Hort text (with its many missing verses and words).
100% Inspiration and 100% Preservation

God forbid that FEBC should abandon the Biblical Reformed Faith.
Rather we reaffirm and call for a return to the Biblical Reformed Faith of
Sola Scriptura in this 21st century of rampant unbelief and compromise
not just in the evangelical but also the fundamentalist world.
FEBC reaffirms the Biblical Reformed Faith by believing that our
faith must be based solely and squarely on the Scriptures and the
Scriptures alone. Our faith and beliefs are not based on church traditions,
human opinions, or personal experiences but only on the forever
infallible and inerrant Word of God. In Article 4 of the FEBC
617
Constitution, we declare in no uncertain terms, The Statement of Faith

of the College shall be in accordance with that system commonly called
the Reformed Faith as expressed in the Confession of Faith as set forth
by the historic Westminster Assembly together with the Larger and
Shorter Catechisms. As regards the Doctrine of Scripture, We believe
in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration (Autographs) and Verbal
Plenary Preservation (Apographs) of the Scriptures in the original
languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the
perfect Word of God, the supreme and final authority in faith and life
(2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21, Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
This is our restatement and reaffirmation of the Westminster
Confession of Faith (I:8) which declares, The Old Testament in Hebrew
and the New Testament in Greek being immediately inspired by
God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages,
are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the
Church is finally to appeal unto them. The Reformed Faith believes in
the absolute sovereignty and faithfulness of God in keeping His Word to
His people, that He is in complete control of the events of history and
world affairs, and that He can intervene miraculously at any point in time
to fulfil His prophecies and His promises.
It is clear in our writings that when we speak of the special and
supernatural preservation of the Scriptures, we are speaking of it in terms
of Gods worknot mans. This is in line with the Westminster
Confession of Faith which states that the preservation of the Scriptures is
by His singular care and providence. It is therefore utterly misleading
to say that we teach that the Greek and Hebrew texts were miraculously
restored by the KJV translators in 1611. If the inspired Greek and
Hebrew texts were restored miraculously it was not by the King James
translators but by the singular care and providence of God and God
alone during the special period of divine intervention in the Great
Protestant Reformation. God has preserved His words pure throughout
the ages and is preserving His words pure today, but there was a high
point in His Biblical preservation work in the days of the Reformation. It
is God who does miracles, not man, and He still works miracles today
according to His sovereign will and time. According to Church historian
Philip Schaff, The Reformation of the 16 th Century is, next to the
introduction of Christianity, the greatest event in history. Just as the
Lord Jesus Christ came miraculously in the fulness of the time (Gal
618
In Defence of the FEBC, the Reformed Faith, and the Reformation Bible
4:4), so did the Reformation. In light of Biblical precedents and Divine

providence (providentia extraordinaria), the Protestant Reformation was
a miracle event from God.
Special Providence and the Reformation

Could God have restored for His Church all of His inspired and
preserved words in the days of the Reformation? As the all-powerful
God, He certainly could, and by faith we believe He surely did. Just as
He restored the Old Covenant words of His Decalogue through His
servant Moses (Exod 19:16-21:26, 31:18-32:28, 34:1-4; Deut 5:1-29,
9:20-21, 10:1-5), and all His words in the scroll which Jehoiakim cut up
and burned (Jer 36:1-32), so we believe the Lord has similarly done for
His New Testament words which have been kept pure in the Traditional
and Majority manuscripts and are now found in the Printed Text of the
Protestant Reformationthe time-tested and time-honoured Textus
Receptus underlying the KJV. FEBC simply does not see the need for any
kind of textual critical work today. As far as we are concerned, we have
not only a fixed and firm Canon (books) but also a fixed and firm Text
(words) we can call the very Word of God, infallible, inerrant,
authentical, and absolutely authoritative. We believe that such a position
is most necessary if we are to weather and survive the onslaughts of
postmodernism, pop-modernism, open theism, and neo-deism that
threaten the church today.
(It is absurd for anti-KJV/VPPists to suggest that FEBC has joined
the Charismatic movement in promoting progressive revelation and postcanonical inspiration, whether advertently or inadvertently. Again, this is
another attempt to caricature our position. We are quite aware of the
hermeneutical and theological fallacies of Charismatism. See my book
Charismatism Q&A.)
FEBC reaffirms the Biblical Reformed Faith by promoting and
defending the Reformed doctrine of the Special Providential
Preservation (also known as the Verbal Plenary Preservation) of the
Scriptures, and the Reformation Text on which the Authorised King
James Bible is based. As a College founded by the Rev Dr Timothy Tow,
father of the Bible-Presbyterian (B-P) movement in Southeast Asia,
FEBC is committed to defending the King James Bible which has been
the official and only English Bible of the B-P denomination in Singapore
since its founding in 1950.
619
KJV Versus Modern Versions

While a small number of B-P churches have replaced the KJV with
the NIV or the NKJV, a good number still hold firmly onto the good old
KJV and welcome no attempts to replace it with the newer and modern
versions. Although FEBC had in the past used the Westcott/Hort-based
United Bible Societies corrupt and critical Greek text, it is now using the
traditional and preserved Greek New Testament underlying the KJV
(Scriveners Textus Receptus) as published by the Dean Burgon Society
and the Trinitarian Bible Society. This switch from the Westcott-Hort
Text to the Textus Receptus was a result of an intensive and systematic
study of the writings of J W Burgon (Anglican), E F Hills (Presbyterian),
D A Waite (Baptist), and the Trinitarian Bible Society since 1992. We
were saved from ignorance, and are now fully committed to the Biblical
doctrine of the divine, verbal and plenary preservation of the Godbreathed Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words of Scripture underlying the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the KJV. Articles 4.2.1.1, 2, and
3 of the FEBC Constitution state:
underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very Word of
God, infallible and inerrant.
We uphold the Authorised (King James) Version to be the Word of God
the best, most faithful, most accurate, most beautiful translation of the Bible
in the English language, and do employ it alone as our primary scriptural
text in the public reading, preaching, and teaching of the English Bible.
[Note that although we use only the KJV, we are not KJV-only in the
Ruckmanite sense, which is clearly seen in our writings.]
The Board of Directors and Faculty shall affirm their allegiance to the Word
of God by taking the Dean Burgon Oath at every annual convocation: I
swear in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit that I
believe the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the
throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of
it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most
High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it
more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth
upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme.
FEBC reaffirms the Biblical Reformed Faith by encouraging the

accurate translation of foreign language Bibles according to the
Reformation Text underlying the KJV. Although FEBC, as an Englishspeaking school, believes that the KJV is the only Bible it should use in
620
the public preaching and teaching of the English Bible, it does not
despise nor prohibit the use of Bibles in other languages. At FEBC, we
have students from 16 countries, and we do not at all discourage them
from reading their Bibles in their own native tongues. We only advise
them to use the best, most accurate, most reliable version they have in
their native language, and to go back to the inspired and preserved
original language Scriptures which we identify to be those behind the
faithful KJV and not the corrupt modern versions to check for accuracy
and fulness of meaning. As far as English Bibles go, we believe the KJV
to be the best English version of the Bible today, and for very good
reasons.
We believe, as the Westminster divines did, that the Holy Scriptures
are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which
they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may
worship Him in an acceptable manner; and through patience and comfort
of the Scriptures, may have hope. Divinity and theology students of
FEBC are required to study the original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek) so that they might be faithful and careful expositors and
translators of the whole counsel of God. A number of our degree
graduates have completed their thesis projects involving work on their
native language Bibles so as to make them closer and more accurate to
the Reformation Text. Thus far, work has been done on the following
foreign language Bibles by our students: Chinese, Falam Chin
(Myanmar), Bahasa Indonesia, Kiswahili (Kenya), Kalenjin (Kenya), and
Vietnamese.
Non-Issues
FEBC is aware that there are certain VPP and KJV defenders who
differ with FEBC over the absolute certainty as regards the underlying
texts or words. But as long as they (1) maintain VPP in the lineage of
Byzantine/Majority manuscripts and the Textus Receptus, and (2) reject
the corrupt Alexandrian/Minority manuscripts or Westcott-Hort Text, and
(3) deny that there are scribal errors in places where there are absolutely
none in the verbally preserved texts/words in the original languages,
these slight differences of opinion over the verbally preserved texts/
words among KJV defenders should remain as non-issues as we focus on
our common goal to promote the best Text and the best Version for the
621
Church today based on the Biblical doctrine of the special providential

preservation of Scripture (or VPP).
Using FEBC and its location as an analogy, all VPP and KJV
defenders would say that FEBC exists (ie, we have an infallible and
inerrant Bible in the original languages today). But if the question is
asked, Where is FEBC? We at FEBC would answer, FEBC is at 9A
Gilstead Road (ie, the infallible and inerrant Scripture is in the KJV
edition of the Textus Receptus). Others might answer, FEBC is in the
Newton area (ie, in the Byzantine/Majority/Received family of texts). If
such be the case, then I believe there should be mutual respect and
cooperation between the two slightly differing but agreeable positions.
Autographs, Apographs, and Authority

Another unfortunate statement cleverly phrased to put the doctrine
of VPP, and the defence of the KJV and its underlying texts in a bad
light, is one produced by a group of eleven Bible-Presbyterian (B-P)
pastors as published in the Life B-P Church Weekly on September 25,
2005, which states,
We, the undersigned Bible-Presbyterian ministers, wholeheartedly believe
and affirm that the inspired Word of God has absolutely no error in the
Original Autographs. However, we reject the theory of Verbal Plenary
Preservation propounded by some, who dogmatically claim that the Greek
and Hebrew copies immediately underlying the King James Version are an
exact replica of the Original Autographs. This insistent promotion of this
theory has resulted in schism among brethren.
If the above statement is true that only the Autographs are absolutely
without error, would it then be correct to say that the eleven pastors do
not believe that they do have in their possession a 100% infallible and
inerrant Bible today without any mistake, seeing that they believe only
the non-existent and intangible Original Autographs to be the
absolutely inerrant Word of God? If this be so, may we ask them, by what
existing infallible and inerrant authority do they base their faith and
practice, when they reject and do not embrace our belief in an existing
infallible Scripture that is without any mistake?
It must be added that the words used by our detractors like theory,
dogmatically, exact replica, and schism are attempts to give a
distorted perception of VPP and its adherents. Without the context, and
the necessary qualifications and clarifications, the above words make
622
those who believe in VPP, who are committed to the Hebrew Masoretic
Text and Greek Textus Receptus and the preserved Hebrew and Greek
words underlying the KJV, look like extreme and unreasonable people. It
must be underscored that we at FEBC have no issue with those who
affirm the present infallibility and inerrancy of the Scriptures in the
family of uncorrupted Traditional, Byzantine, Majority, and Received
Hebrew and Greek apographs God has providentially and specially
preserved, but, without denying inerrancy, are uncertain about some of
the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words immediately underlying the KJV.
A minister in the group of eleven who resigned from the FEBC was
in fact asked on September 23, 2003, in the presence of Rev Dr Timothy
Tow and certain elders at the Parsonage, to confirm or harmonise his
belief in a Perfect Bible existing within the family of uncorrupted texts
by denying that scribal errors exist in certain passages of the KJV, as all
extant Hebrew manuscriptsand not only the Hebrew manuscripts/texts
immediately underlying the KJVpoint to the KJV translators
translating the original language texts in 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles
22:2 correctly. Pointing to attempts at emending what he regards as
scribal errors to be contrary to all Hebrew manuscript evidence and to be
positing that God has failed to preserve all of His inspired, inerrant and
infallible words within the family of texts, the minister kept mum. I had
invited him back to the FEBC faculty if he would agree to change his
view and affirm the present perfection of Scripture. It was no surprise
that he did not take to my offer as he had joined others in attacking the
use of key Scripture verses such as Matthew 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31,
Luke 21:33 and Psalm 12:6-7 cited by VPPists to support special
providential preservation or VPP.
The real issue seems to lie with detractors who claim to be
preserving godly paths when they do not even believe in all the inspired
words of God being verbally and plenarily preserved, either within the
family of Traditional and Preserved Texts or in the Hebrew OT and
Greek NT words immediately underlying the KJV. Even worse, such
detractors appear to be vacillating or changing in their beliefs so that
VPPists are unsure where they actually stand on the issues.
Theory or Doctrine?
Anti-VPPists say that VPP is a theory. How is it a theory if it is
taught explicitly in the Scriptures? A theory has no biblical basis, but the
623
VPP of Scripture is hardly a theory, for it is clearly taught in the

following biblical passages:
Psalm 12:6-7The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried
in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O
LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 33:11The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of
his heart to all generations.
Psalm 78:1-7Give ear, O my people, [to] my law: incline your ears to the
Psalm 100:5For the LORD [is] good; his mercy [is] everlasting; and his
truth [endureth] to all generations.
Psalm 105:8He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word [which]
he commanded to a thousand generations.
Psalm 111:7-8The works of his hands [are] verity and judgment; all his
commandments [are] sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, [and are]
done in truth and uprightness.
Psalm 117:2For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of
the LORD [endureth] for ever. Praise ye the LORD.
Psalm 119:89For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:152Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou
hast founded them for ever.
Psalm 119:160Thy word [is] true [from] the beginning: and every one of
thy righteous judgments [endureth] for ever.
Isaiah 40:8The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our
God shall stand for ever.
Isaiah 59:21As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD;
My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,
shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out
of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for
ever.
624
Matthew 4:4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by
Matthew 5:17-18Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
Matthew 24:35Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away.
John 10:35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the scripture cannot be broken;
1 Peter 1:23-25Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For
all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The
grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the
Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is
preached unto you.
Is not VPP a biblical doctrine? Surely it is! Every believeryoung

or old, man or woman, rich or poor, unlearned or educated, Jew or
Gentileby simple, childlike faith in Gods forever infallible and
inerrant words written abovecan say Amen to the truth that God has
indeed preserved His inspired words, and every one of them to the last
iota!
Where are the Inspired and Preserved Words?

Now if we have all of Gods inspired words preserved for us today,
then the question is where precisely? The logic of faith based on the
Biblical doctrine of VPP would lead us to the inspired Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek words that God has specially and providentially
preserved in the traditional and majority manuscripts, and in the
printed received texts underlying the Reformation Bibles which God
has continuously and supernaturally kept pure throughout the ages
without any loss of any of the inspired words and always available to
His people even up till the present, which are today fully represented by
the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures underlying the KJV which we have in
our hands today.
Are these Hebrew and Greek Scriptures underlying the KJV an
exact replica of the autographs? If by exact replica is meant the
miraculous reproduction of the exact tablets of stone of the Ten
625
Commandments, or the very first or original papyri or parchments the

prophets and apostles wrote on, the answer would of course be no. It is
absurd and ridiculous to even suggest this. The original autographs have
perished, but the inspired words of God remain and continue to exist.
VPP is speaking of the preservation of the words that God had originally
breathed out and inscripturated in the Biblical Canon, and not the
preservation of the materialsthe clay tables, or papyri, or parchments.
As I had explained in my paper, A Plea for a Perfect Bible, The paper
may be different, but the contents [or words] are the same. These
inspired words are preserved in all ages, and not only from 1611. Let me
remind VPP detractors that my book is entitled Kept Pure in All Ages, and
not Kept Pure Since 1611.
Faith or Criticism?
We do believe that the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words
immediately underlying the KJV are the fully inspired and fully
preserved words of God. As such we do not believe there is a need for
any kind of textual criticism today. The so-called science of textual
criticism is intrinsically subjective and speculative (since the autographs
which no true evangelical or fundamentalist doubts are absolute and
perfect in every way have long perished and are no longer existing). As
such, we feel that modern textual criticism that employs rationalistic
rules of human intellect and imagination feeds on the pride and vanity of
sinful beings who wish to place themselves above the almighty and
infinite God and His infallible and inerrant promises, who
presumptuously arrogate themselves as critics and correctors of His Word
or words, and by their conjectural emendations are conceited enough to
think they are doing God and His Church a service.
If textual critics are so certain there is no perfect Bible today (and
even castigate those that do), and are so sure of their ability and prowess
to correct Gods words, then why cannot they produce one for us by now?
Yea, we demand such a Bible from the high and mighty scholars of our
modern age. Why cannot they produce it? We want to be absolutely
certain about our Book on which we defend our faith and preach the good
news of Jesus Christ. When can we have it? Are they conscientiously
working towards the perfection of their Bible? Yet they castigate the
saints who believe they already have a 100% infallible and inerrant Bible
626
in their hands today, and call them fools, schismatics, even

heretics!
Distortions and Misrepresentations

Is the statement against the VPP of Scriptures produced by the group
of eleven a fair representation of FEBCs VPP position? By no means!
Misrepresentation of the VPP position has been the consistent modus
operandi of anti-VPP advocates. Instead of defending their non-VPP
position from the Bible (until now, they have not quoted any scripture to
support their position), they have resorted always to caricaturing,
distorting and misrepresenting FEBCs position in various ways,
including saying or alluding to it as Ruckmanism, SDAism, and even
Charismatism! It seems that they have to resort to such tactics in order to
make their case against those who believe in the present perfection of the
Bible. We do not know who among the group of eleven crafted or was
instrumental in the crafting of the anti-VPP statement issued by the
group. However, we know that one of the chief opponents of VPP had
taught and published that a lie of necessity may be told in times of war.
If the group of eleven would rephrase their statement in the manner
below, it would be a more accurate representation of what we believe and
what they reject,
We, the undersigned Bible-Presbyterian ministers, wholeheartedly believe
and affirm that the inspired Word of God has absolutely no error in the
Original Autographs which the VPP fundamentalists also believe without
equivocation. However, we reject their belief in the Verbal Plenary
Preservation (as taught in Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke
21:33, 1 Pet 1:23-25), and that all the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek
words of the original apographs (ie, copies) underlying the King James
Version are precisely the preserved words of the original autographs.
Now we do not consider as enemies those who might not hold to our
position exactly as regards the words in the uncorrupted and preserved
Traditional/Majority/Byzantine/Received family of manuscripts or texts
but nevertheless deny any discrepancy, contradiction or mistake in the
Bible, and are against Westcott and Hort and the modern versions. We
are not as dogmatic as our detractors paint us out to be; there is
definitely charity in our defence of the KJV and its underlying texts, not
at the expense of truth but on the basis of truth. Charity was indeed
displayed in a proposed but unpublished statement, A Plea for a Perfect
627
Bible Again so as to Preserve Our Godly Path, that sought peace and
reconciliation, but was spurned by the powers that be on April 16, 2003.
Textual Issue and Separation

The group of eleven is a mixed group with differing views on the
versions issue, who appear to see no need to defend the KJV or its
underlying texts, or to warn against writers who deny the present
infallibility and inerrancy of the original language Scriptures, who are
decidedly anti-TR and anti-KJV, pro-Westcott/Hort and pro-modernversions. They have been quick to find fault with FEBCs defence of the
KJV and its underlying texts, but not quick to refute the public attacks
made by Bob Jones University (BJU) and Central Baptist Theological
Seminary (CBTS) against the biblical doctrine of the special providential
preservation (or VPP) of Scripture, the KJV and its underlying texts.
In fact, they have been actively promoting those books and
cultivating the friendship of such institutions, and quoting them against
FEBC. Why? Does this not contradict the biblical injunction of 2
Thessalonians 3:6-15 to separate from disobedient brethren? For
enlightenment, see Charles Seets excellent paper on The Principle of
Secondary Separation, in The Burning Bush (January 1996). The Rev
Charles Seet, now the pastor of Life B-P Church, had also written an
excellent expose of Westcott and Hort entitled, The Inside Story of
Westcott and Hort, published in The Burning Bush (January 1998). Is
the group of eleven B-P pastors now calling Westcott and Hort friends,
and KJV/TR defenders enemies? Why are they attacking their very
own schoolFEBCwhich stoutly defends the KJV and its underlying
texts, and the doctrine of VPP which undergirds and safeguards the KJV
and its underlying texts? Why are they taking sides with institutions like
BJU and CBTS which promote Westcott and Hort and the modern
perversions?
Charity or Schism?
Can two walk together, except they be agreed? (Amos 3:3). When
differences arise, a splitting of ways may be inevitable. In a split, should
one applaud the party who is more charitable? Or should one accuse one
of the parties of schism when it takes two parties to disagree in order to
split?
628
The statement by the group of eleven accuses VPP believers of

causing schism. Can such an accusation be fair when these have chosen
to follow our God-appointed, faithful and elderly pastor in the Rev Dr
Timothy Tow who had given over to his detractors the very Life B-P
Church the Lord had used him to found, build and pastor for over 50
years, to start a new church from scratch?
In the August 1, 2004 Weekly of True Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church, the Rev Dr Timothy Tow wrote in his Pastoral Chat page:
The Truth How We Are Now Become True Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church
In Vol. I No. 43 of our Weekly dated 25 July 2004 last week it was reported
The new name of our Church is gazetted True Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church. How have we now become True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
began like this.
At a Faculty Meeting [29 October 02] of Far Eastern Bible College Rev
Colin Wong and Rev Charles Seet my two Assistant Pastors at Life B-P
Church declared they could no longer take the Dean Burgon Oath of
swearing allegiance to the Bible to be without mistake to the last syllable
and letter. They said they had discovered some mistakes but these did not
affect doctrine and were not serious.
Since this College has required absolute allegiance to the Bible since the
seventies I gladly let them resign.
In order to protect the good name of FEBC I declared the Bible to be 100%
perfect without any mistake.
As the Session of Life B-P Church took their side it turned out I had to
resign from the Church to stand for a 100% Perfect Bible without mistake.
In the first week of October 03 the Lord provided us an Auditorium of
RELC, situated near to Shangri-La Hotel, and under the name of FEBC we
launched out as FEBC Lords Day Service at RELC. We took time to apply
for registration as Word of Life or alternative True Life.
Since there is a Christian organisation already registered, the authorities let
us use True Life and gazetted it as reported 25 July 04 last week.
Doctrine in the belief of a 100% Perfect Bible without any mistake and
doctrine of belief in a Bible with some mistakes but not serious since they
dont touch doctrine resulted in our leaving Life B-P Church to start this
service since first week of October 03. Now there are 300 worshipping at
RELC and we have booked with RELC for another year.
This is the truth how it all started.
629

Dean Burgon Oath
I swear in the Name of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit that I
believe the Bible is none other than the voice of Him that sitteth upon the
throne. Every book of it, every chapter of it, every verse of it, every word of
it, every syllable of it, every letter of it, is the direct utterance of the Most
High. The Bible is none other than the Word of God, not some part of it
more, some part of it less, but all alike the utterance of Him that sitteth
upon the throne, faultless, unerring, supreme. So help me God, AMEN.
Was not Jesus treated in the same way by His hometown Nazareth?
For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own
country (John 4:44). Pastor Tow did not desert his flock as some
maliciously accuse him of. On the contrary, it was his session that had
rejected him in favour of his two assistant pastors who had resigned from
FEBC because they could no longer take the Dean Burgon Oath. Humbly
and meekly, in the face of many unjust accusations (see Summary of
Facts in the Life B-P Church Weekly, September 24, 2003) hurled at him
non-stop, he departed to found a new church to take a stand for the
present infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture he was forbidden to take at
the old church. As far as FEBC is concerned, we the current faculty and
students do appreciate our late principal and teacherTimothy Tow
very much, and are thankful to God that he remained ever fervent and
faithful to His Master even in such difficult and oppressive moments.
To the Glory of God Alone

In the spirit of its late founderthe Rev Dr Timothy Towwe at
FEBC want to train Gods people to become faithful saints and servants,
not puffed-up scholars and usurpers. Why so? The infallible and inerrant
words written by the Apostle Paul 2,000 years ago ring true even today,
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God
is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many
wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and
God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which
are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised,
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things
that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that
glorieth, let him glory in the Lord (1 Cor 1:25-31).
630
In his defence of VPP and the KJV, the Rev Dr Timothy Tow never
failed to remind us of this infallible principle of faith and ministry which
is the glory of God, quoting the Lords forever infallible and inerrant
words in Isaiah 42:8 and Jeremiah 9:23-24:
Isaiah 42:8I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give
to another.
Jeremiah 9:23-24Thus saith the LORD, Let not the wise man glory in his
wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man
glory in his riches: But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he
understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the LORD which exercise
lovingkindness, judgement, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these
things I delight, saith the LORD.
We are quite happy to sing the words of Martin Luther,

Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill:
Gods truth abideth still
His kingdom is forever.
Sola Scriptura! Soli Deo Gloria!
631
55
BEARING TRUE WITNESS
A Response to Bearing False Witness by Charles Seet
Jeffrey Khoo
I write in response to the article and statement published in the Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church (BPC) Weekly of January 27, 2008, namely,
(1) Bearing False Witness by the Rev Charles Seet, and (2) An Appeal
to VPP Proponents by the Life BPC Board of Elders (BOE).1
Ninth Commandment
The Rev Charles Seet wrote an excellent article against breaking the
ninth commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbour (Exod 20:16). He rightly warned against lies, deceits,
boastings, flatteries, false accusations, gossips, perjuries, etc. Despite his
warning against bearing false witness, it is necessary to reveal that the
Rev Seet when he taught the Ten Commandments at the Far Eastern Bible
College (FEBC) commented that there are times when employing
deceit is not a sin. In his lecture notes, he wrote that in times of war it
might be necessary to tell a lie (i.e. a lie of necessity). The Rev Seet is
even quoted in the internet as an advocate of such a lie of necessity.2
Now, if the Rev Charles Seet believes that bearing false witness or
telling a lie is acceptable in times of war, how can we be sure that he does
not deem the present situation between Life BPC and FEBC to be war,
and that he is not employing deceit in his writings and dealings with us?
How can we be sure he is speaking truthfully since he believes that
Truth must always be given to whom it is due, but it may not be given to
an enemy who may use that truth for evil purposes (emphasis his). Does
he see FEBC as an enemy? From his Mark Them Which Cause
Divisions paper branding VPP a heresy without any biblical
justification, and seeing it as an evil which must be destroyed together
with its proponents, I cannot help but think that he sees us as enemies. He
tells us not to bear false witness, but how can we be sure he is bearing
632
Bearing True Witness
true witness at this time, and not employing deception or telling lies to
destroy his enemies?.
At this juncture, will the Rev Charles Seet bear true witness by
telling us whether it is true or not that an Elder of Life BPC had
recommended the anti-KJV/pro-modern-versions bookOne Bible
Only?privately to Lifers when the Rev Dr Timothy Tow was still the
pastor of Life BPC, thereby undermining his leadership and his defence
of the KJV against Westcott and Hort? Was it not true that another Elder
had deemed FEBC extreme for rejecting the NKJV? Would he also
consider the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) to be extreme since the
TBS like FEBC rejects the NKJV? Will he testify honestly or will he
apply the lie of necessity? Please be reminded of the inspired and
preserved, infallible and inerrant words of God: But let your
communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these
cometh of evil (Matt 5:37); In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall
every word be established (2 Cor 13:1).
Selective Quotation
The Life BPC BOE say to quote selectively is to bear false witness.
This is a strange allegation indeed. Scholars often quote selectively but
fairly to prove a point based upon certain presuppositions and premises,
and often write papers to build their own case or that of other published
authors/scholars by introducing new arguments or evidences that had not
been previously considered. This is not to say that those who have been
quoted necessarily support the position or supposition of the author or
writer or vice versa. Every scholar has to do his own research and
thinking. This is all part of the scholastic exercise of iron sharpening iron
(Prov 27:17). As far as Christianity is concerned, we do not go on a wild
goose chase, but have a totally infallible and absolutely authoritative
basis or source which is the 100% inspired and 100% preserved words of
God by which we subject all our thinking and reasoning, convictions and
conclusions. It is baffling why this should be considered false
witnessing.
Now, the Rev Charles Seet and his Elders say I am guilty of
selective quotation, and in their judgement, bearing false witness.
They say that in my paper on John Owens view of the Perfect Bible, I
was deceitful by hiding the fact that John Owen advocated the exercise
of diligence in searching the Word of God to solve textual variants in or
633
among the copies we have. If they had read my paper carefully and
thoroughly, they would not have wronged me, for I stated clearly in that
article, Owen did not deny the existence of textual variants (387).
Nevertheless, he clarified that the whole Word of God, in every letter
and tittle, as given from him by inspiration, is preserved without
corruption (388).3 I also went on to deal with textual criticism, and
showed how Owen was against it because the divine origin and nature of
Scripture did not allow for it.
If I am guilty of selective quotation, then I am afraid the Rev
Charles Seet and his Elders are guilty of it too. For instance, they quoted
John Owen about textual variants but stopped short of what Owen went
on to say about how textual critics have wrongly used a corrupt
translation like the Septuagint (LXX) to correct or emend the inspired
and preserved Hebrew text. Right after Owen said, God by his
providence preserving the whole entire, suffered this lesser variety to fall
out, in or among the copies we have, for the quickening and exercising of
our diligence in our search into his Word (as quoted by the Life BOE),
he wrote in the very next paragraph, It was an unhappy attempt, (which
must afterward be spoken unto,) that a learned man hath of late put
himself upon, viz., to prove variations in all the present Apographa the
Old Testament in the Hebrew tongue from the copies used of old, merely
upon uncertain conjectures and the credit of corrupt translations.
Whether that plea of his be more unreasonable in itself and devoid of any
real ground of truth, or injurious to the love and care of God over his
Word and church, I know not; sure I am, it is both in a high degree. The
translation especially insisted on by him is that of the LXX. That this
translation either from the mistakes of its first authors, (if it be theirs
whose name and number it beam,) or the carelessness, or ignorance, or
worse, of its transcribersis corrupted and gone off from the original in
a thousand places twice told, is acknowledged by all who know aught of
these things. Strange that so corrupt a stream should be judged a fit
means to cleanse the fountain; (emphasis his).
It is clear Owen dismissed the LXX as a corrupt translation and is
opposed to uncertain conjectures which we on the basis of VPP
likewise dismiss and oppose. Why did the Rev Charles Seet and the
Elders of Life BPC not go on quoting Owen and his warnings against
textual criticism despite the textual variants but instead accuse me of
bearing false witness? Jesus warned, Judge not, that ye be not judged.
634
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest
thou the mote that is in thy brothers eye, but considerest not the beam
that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull
out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then
shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brothers eye (Matt
7:1-5).
Burgon, Hills, and Waite

Now, it is without question that J W Burgon and E F Hills both
believed in the jot-and-tittle preservation of the Holy Scriptures (Matt
5:18), and this is nothing short of verbal and plenary preservation (VPP).4
However, this does not mean that they agree on every point as regards the
identification of the texts, and that was why I said, Burgons Majority
Text position is good, Hillss Received Text underlying the KJV
(maximum certainty but not absolute certainty) is better, and
Waites Received Text underlying the KJV (100% certainty of exact
words kept intact) is best. 5 This has to do with the question of
consistency in the identification of the preserved text or words by means
of the logic of faith, but none of them ever denied VPP or the jot-andtittle preservation of the Scriptures (Matt 5:18), unlike certain American
fundamentalists, neo-evangelicals, and modernists today who say that
Biblical preservation is not taught in the Scriptures, who dismiss it as a
new doctrine invented by the Westminster divines, who believe that
there are lost words in the Bible, and who employ conjectural emendation
by attributing scribal errors to certain parts of Gods Word when there
are none (e.g. 1 Samuel 13:1, 2 Chronicles 22:2 etc). Based on Gods
promise of jot-and-tittle preservation (or VPP), I do not believe that
Gods people throughout the ages have been reading such errors or
mistakes in the Bible, but the infallible and inerrant, inspired and
preserved words of God.
Burgon, Hills, and Waite are all on the same team of KJV defenders,
and they essentially agree as to where the inspired words of God are
preserved. By way of illustration, if Burgon, Hills and Waite were to be
asked, Where is Life BPC/FEBC?, Burgon would answer, It is in the
Newton area, Hills would say, It is along Gilstead Road, and Waite
would reply, It is at 9, 9A and 10 Gilstead Road. All three answers are
635
true (Burgons answer is good, Hillss is better, Waites the best), without
denying the very existence and location of Life BPC and FEBC. In terms
of location, the first is close, the next is closer, and the last is the closest,
being most specific and certain. A Bible believer will not lose his way if
he consults Burgon, Hills and Waite, but if he were to ask Westcott and
Hort, the modern textual critics or modern versionists, they would tell
him that Life BPC/FEBC is in Woodlands, and he would surely lose his
way. Now, this veritable and charitable way of looking at the Biblical
doctrine of VPP is not something the Rev Charles Seet and his Elders are
ignorant of, for I had written a sincere letter on March 27, 2003 to the
Life BPC session seeking for peace and unity on the basis of truth and
love, but they rejected it on April 16, 2003. They were hard on Pastor
Tow during session meetings for taking the same 100% view on Scripture
among other things, which sadly drove him to his resignation a few
months later, on August 20, 2003. Where was the verity, sagacity, and
charity in all this? Let that sober, sagacious, and scholarly man answer.
May the Lord raise up a Gamaliel (Acts 5:34-39)!
Textual Variants
The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC accused me of deceit
because, according to them, I hid or denied the existence of scribal
errors or textual variants in the manuscripts. This allegation is false. I
spoke about textual variants in my book, Kept Pure in All Ages.6 I also
mentioned them in my paper, A Plea for a Perfect Bible where I said,
No one denies that scribal errors were committed during the work of
copying Scripture. But the question is: Did God allow any of His inspired
words in the autographs to be lost during this transmission process?
Although the Church does not have the autographs (the very first scripts)
today, she has the apographs (copies) which reflect the autographs.
Providentially speaking, the autographs were neither lost nor destroyed.7
In light of Gods promise to preserve every jot and tittle of His
inspired words in the original languages (Matt 5:18), I am against
attributing scribal errors to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures when there
are none to begin with. It is also important to understand that scribal
errors are human errors committed during the copying of Scripture and
should not be identified with Scripture for they have no part whatsoever
in Gods infallible and inerrant Word. God has ensured that none of His
inspired words is lost and His inspired Word as a whole is not corrupted
636
in any way. Faithful scribes not only copied the Scriptures but also
corrected any copying errors and identified the authentic words or
readings by the guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout the ages and
especially in the days of the Protestant Reformation. As such, we believe
the Hebrew and Greek texts, words or readings underlying the
Authorised, King James Bible are not only the closest to the autographs
but the very autographic texts themselves, the 100% authentic and
infallible apographs, by special or extraordinary providence (Rom 11:3336).
Scribal Errors?
The Rev Charles Seet in his sermon, The Word that Endures
Forever (October 28, 2007) said, And some had undermined the
authority of the scriptures by claiming that there are mistakes and
discrepancies in the Bible and certain parts of the Bible are not true.
Now the truth of the matter is that the alleged contradictions in the Bible
are only apparent. They can be explained, they can be nicely
harmonised. Amen! This is precisely what VPP teaches and promotes
and what I had encouraged him to do back in 2002, that the so-called
discrepancies in the Bible, especially with reference to chronology,
dates, numbers, spelling, names, and places etc are only apparent and not
true discrepancies, and that we should harmonise and not amend or
change them by calling them scribal errors.
Now, I would like to know from the Rev Charles Seet how he would
square his statement above with what he wrote in his personal website
when he said, Alleged discrepancies and errors that have been adduced
as proof of limited inerrancy can be explained in several ways: Changes
in spelling, changes in units of weight and measurement, different
calendar systems, or mistakes made by scribes during the copying of
manuscripts, and yet claim that the allegation that I believe the Word
of God is not 100% perfect but preserved with copy errors is false?8 If
the Rev Seet believes that the Word of God is 100% perfect, and that it is
not preserved with copy errors then why did he argue for such an error
in 2 Chronicles 22:2 (and other like passages) when there is none to begin
with? Why did he write in a paper submitted to the Rev Dr Timothy Tow
after the July 30, 2002 faculty meeting that scribal errors do exist, but
they are so insignificant that they do not affect the preservation of the
whole Bible, and then gave a list of such scribal errors in 2 Kings 8:26/2
637
Chronicles 22:2, 2 Kings 24:8/2 Chronicles 36:9, 2 Samuel 8:4/1

Chronicles 18:4, 1 Kings 7:16/2 Kings 25:17, and Judges 18:30?
When the Rev Seet was asked about Matthew 5:18 in those days
when he was still in FEBC, he replied that he had to reexamine what
Jesus said in Matthew 5:18, that jot and tittle does not mean jot and tittle
because he believed to be fact that 2 Chronicles 22:2 contains a scribal
error. If he now denies that there are such mistakes in the Old Testament,
then that is VPP is it not? Why does he now say VPP is heresy and we
are heretics when we believe and teach that the Word of God is 100%
perfect without any error or mistake (scribal or otherwise)? His words
and actions are very contradictory and confusing.
The Rev Charles Seet and his Elders said that John Owen advocated
the exercise of diligence in searching the Word of God to solve textual
difficulties. We agree with Owen and have done just this through our
papers defending the present infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture
which are published in The Burning Bush (re Moses or Manasseh in Judg
18:30,9 the age of Ahaziah in 2 Chron 22:2,10 Sauls reign in 1 Sam 13:1,11
the numbers in Ezra 2 and Neh 712). As the Lord enables, more papers
would be published in future to defend the infallibility and inerrancy of
the Hebrew and Greek texts/readings/words on which the KJV is based
(e.g. Ps 22:16, Acts 12:4, Jude 25, etc) without undermining the veracity
of the Scriptures and the faith of the saints by calling them mistakes or
errors (scribal or otherwise).
Has the Rev Seet changed his view in light of his October 28, 2007
sermon? We are not sure at all since he remains vague and refuses to
answer questions. But one thing is sure: By calling VPP a heresy which
must be stopped at its source, he clearly forbids us to teach that
apparent discrepancies in the original language texts or words
immediately underlying the Authorised Version are not due to scribal
errors. For our belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of every single
word of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament on which
the Authorised, King James Bible is based (which they claim to uphold as
the very Word of God), and teaching that there are no such errors or
mistakes in our Bible in light of Matthew 5:18 and other Bible verses, he
now brands us as heretics, bans us from the church sanctuary, and
requires us to relinquish our lawful rights to possess and use our
birthplace and home at 9, 9A, and 10 Gilstead Road. Is such an act just
and fair, veritable and charitable?
638
Biblical Separation
Only recently, an Elder of Life BPC wrote to someone concerning
the mega-church ministry of Joel Osteen and his wife. This Elder said,
while I can listen and accept the teachings of the Osteens, FEBC may
notbecause they do not subscribe to VPP! Watch Joel Osteen Online
and that will turn FEBC off for sure! FEBC will consider the Osteens
preaching humanistic, neo-evangelical, etc. Now, whether Joel Osteen
subscribes to VPP or not, I do not know. Has he made any statement
about it? Nevertheless, it is true that FEBC does not endorse Joel Osteen,
and neither should Life BPC (if they adhere to their constitution).
Although Osteen may say certain things right or somewhat right about
practical living (humility, forgiveness, love, etc) which are also taught by
many philosophers, moralists, and religionists, he has gotten other things
very wrong. One very wrong thing is his inability to confess explicitly the
uniqueness of Christ and Christianity, that Jesus is the only Saviour of the
world and only Way to heaven in a Larry King Live interview in 2005,
much like Billy Graham in a Robert Schuller interview in 1997.13 The
neo-evangelicalism and ecumenism of Billy Graham is well known,14 and
Joel Osteen is no different. It is thus no surprise that Osteen should say
that Mormonism is Christianity in a Fox News interview on December
23, 2007.15
We do not judge Joel Osteen subjectively but objectively by the
Perfect Standard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the perfectly inspired
and perfectly preserved words of God, but this Elder commends Osteen
and condemns FEBC by no other standard than himself, according to his
liking or disliking. It goes without saying that bearing true witness
involves judging a person not by his appearance but by the righteous
standards revealed in the Perfect Law of God (Ps 19:7, John 7:24, Heb
4:12), which is none other than His verbally and plenarily inspired Word
supernaturally preserved by His singular care and providence to the jot
and tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18).
I am thus utterly amazed that an Elder of Life BPC has no qualms
saying that he can accept the teachings of the Osteens without any
qualification, and then slight FEBCs separatist stance against the error of
humanism, neo-evangelicalism, etc. It shows a gross lack of knowledge,
wisdom and discernment from a high-ranking church officer, a Sunday
School superintendent and teacher, who should know better. Let it be
639
known that all pastors, elders and deacons of Life BPC are required to be
in full agreement with the doctrinal stand of the Bible-Presbyterian
Church, in particular with its Principle and Practice of Biblical
Separation (Article 13:3), which is clearly spelt out in Article 6,
Principle and Practice of Biblical Separation.
Lest they forget, permit me now to cite Article 6.8 which states, In
loyalty to Gods revealed Word, we, as an organised portion of the people
of God, are obliged to oppose all forms of modernism, cultism,
Romanism and false religions. Dialogue for the purpose of reaching a
compromise between all true Bible believers and representatives of such
beliefs is impious, unbiblical, treasonous and unfaithful to the holy God,
as He has revealed Himself to us in His infallible, inerrant Word.
(Where and which is Life BPCs infallible and inerrant Word may I
ask?) Article 6.9 states without equivocation, We are opposed to all
efforts to obscure or wipe out the clear line of separation between these
absolutes: truth and error, light and darkness. (See Jer 5:20; 2 Cor 6:1418.) We refer to such efforts by New Evangelicals, Charismatic
Christians, promoters of ecumenical cooperative evangelism and of the
social gospel, and all churches and other movements and organisations
that are aligned with or sympathetic to the Ecumenical Movement. This
must surely include separating from Westcott and Hort who denied the
inerrancy of Scripture, the historicity of the creation account, and other
fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, and all the liberal,
ecumenical, neo-evangelical, corrupt modern versions of the Bible today
that stem from their corrupt Greek text.
In light of the constitutional requirements of Life BPC, especially as
regards Biblical Separation, are the leaders of Life BPC truly preserving
godly paths, or are they systematically removing the godly paths and
dismantling the landmarks of the Bible-Presbyterian Church as founded
by the Rev Dr Timothy Tow? FEBC is faithful to the doctrines and ethos
of its founding father, and that is why he stands with his school of
prophets, and hoping that the church he foundedbeloved Life BPC
would repent and return to the godly paths he has originally established
in his younger days and now strengthened in his old age. But it is indeed
sad and tragic that the current leaders of Life BPC are dead set in getting
rid of FEBC by stirring up hatred against FEBC, maligning it as a
heretical institution. Even Dr Peter Masters of Spurgeons Tabernacle,
who holds to a position very close to ours though not exactly, does not
640
deem VPP to be heretical but honourable, bearing true and not false
witness!
Plea for Peace and Unity Based on Truth and Charity

As much as the Rev Charles Seet and his Elders have rightly
exhorted us to bear true witness, we urge them to do likewise. Truth is
open and does not hide. If ye continue in my word, then are ye my
disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make
you free (John 8:31-32).
Notes
http://www.lifebpc.com/weekly/080127.htm.
http://www.otweb.com/blog/index.php?id=107&t=On_Lying.
3
http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP3.htm.
4
http://www.febc.edu.sg/Verbal Plenary Preservation.htm.
1
2
Ibid.
http://www.febc.edu.sg/Theology3.htm.
7
8
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~sbseet/position.htm (emphasis his).
9
10
11
12
http://www.febc.edu.sg/BBVol13_2b.htm.
13
http://www.av1611.org/osteen.html; http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/
article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51461; and http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/
febc_press/A Theology For Every Christian Book 1.pdf (pp 11-15).
14
http://www.freepres.org/pamphlet_details.asp?graham_facts.
15
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318054,00.html; http://
www.apologeticsindex.org/646-joel-osteen-mormon-church.
6
641
56
BIBLICAL AUTHORITY
A Response to Sermons by Colin Wong and Charles
Seet against Verbal Plenary Preservation
Jeffrey Khoo
The twin doctrines of Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) and Verbal
Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures to the jot and tittle
(Matt 5:18) are most vital and indispensable doctrines of the Christian
Faith. That is why the Board and Faculty of the Far Eastern Bible College
(FEBC) at the behest of its founding principalthe Rev Dr Timothy
Towtake the Dean Burgon Oath which concerns the total infallibility
and inerrancy of the Bible which we have in our hands today to the last
letter and syllable. As the Lord had raised up Martin Luther and John
Calvin and others to defend the faith in the days of the Protestant
Reformation, so did the Lord raise up Dean Burgon of Oxford and
Chichester to defend the Traditional and Reformation Text and the
Authorised Version (AV) or King James Version (KJV) against the
Corrupt and Critical Text of Westcott and Hort which underlies many
modern versions and perversions of the Bible today.
Accusation
On October 28, 2007, the Revs Charles Seet and Colin Wong
pastors of Life Bible-Presbyterian Churchpreached against the Verbal
Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures (sermons were
published in www.lifebpc.com). The Rev Seet claims that VPP is only a
subjective opinion that has no biblical authority. nowhere in the entire
Bible, Old Testament or New Testament is there any verse which says
that God is going to restore the 100% purity of the Greek and Hebrew
text of His Word to make that exactly like the original autographs. The
Rev Seet went on to accuse FEBC of taking away the authority of the
Scriptures from Gods people by upholding VPP. The Rev Wong declares
that the Bible is perfect, infallible and inerrant only in the autographs
642
Biblical Authority
(original or first manuscripts) and not the apographs (copies of the

original manuscripts) claiming that his position (i.e., infallible and
inerrant autographs, not apographs) is the Reformed position. We regret
to say that the Revs Seet and Wong are mistaken on all counts, not
considering their misrepresentation and caricature of VPP.
The Rev Wong made a very serious accusation which must be dealt
with before we go on. He accused us of a blatant lie for saying that he
does not believe the Bible is perfect. Now, he replies by asking, Which
Bible? That is a good question. It must be categorically stated that we
have never at any time accused the Rev Wong of denying that the Bible
was perfect in the autographs, but the truth is he does not believe the
Bible to be perfect today whether in the original languages or in any
version or translation, and as such could not take the Dean Burgon Oath.
Ask the Rev Wong: Which Bible today do you consider to be infallible
and inerrant? I am sure he cannot tell you which for he does not know it
nor have it; his perfect Bible is unknowable and non-existent!
What are truly lies are the spurious and malicious accusations
hurled at FEBC and its faculty, that we believe in an inspired KJV, and
that anyone who does not use the KJV is condemned to hell. We are
called heretics, cultists, and schismatics; and threatened with relocation
from our birthplace and home at Gilstead Road. Our only, humble plea is
for a presently infallible and inerrant Bible, and for justice and equity.
Refutation
The charge that VPP is an unbiblical doctrine needs to be refuted (2
Tim 4:2). If VPP is not based on the Holy Scripturesour sole and
supreme authority of our beliefs and practicesthen it is a useless
doctrine indeed. However, contrary to the thinking and reasoning of the
Revs Seet and Wong, VPP is indeed a biblical doctrine as clearly taught
in Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 5:18, 24:35, John 10:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25 and
many other passages.
Furthermore, the belief that God is able to restore and preserve His
inspired words is not without biblical precedents. There are at least two
instances in the Old Testament when God did restore His words to 100%
perfection after they had been destroyed by man. The first is found in
Exodus 19:16-21:26, 31:18-32:28, 34:1-4 (cf Deut 5:1-20) when Moses
in righteous anger smashed to pieces the two stone tablets containing the
Ten Commandments which God had authored. Are the Ten
643
Commandments thus destroyed and lost, or have they been restored and
preserved?
Let me quote our founding pastor and teacherthe Rev Dr Timothy
Towwho in an article on Gods Special Providential Care of the Text
of Scripture published in the October-December 2002 issue of the Bible
Witness wrote, To re-establish the giving of the Law, God commanded
Moses to hew another two tablets of stone and bring them with him back
to the mountain top. And he wrote on the tables according to the first
writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the
mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the
LORD gave them unto me. And I turned myself and came down from the
mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be,
as the LORD commanded me (Deut 10:4-5). The Ark of the Covenant is
the only holy furniture kept inside the Holy of Holies. Gods sacred
commandments, intact and written on both sides of the two tablets so
nothing can be added and nothing can be subtracted and were kept secure
from any human intrusion. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in
heaven (Ps 119:89). The restoration of the two tables is to show that
heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Not
one letter or even the cross of a t, and the dot of an i. For verily I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law [Matt 5:18]. Jesus says, The scripture cannot be
broken (John 10:35).
The second instance is recorded in Jeremiah 36. Here we find the
wicked king Jehoiakim cutting up the inspired scroll and throwing it into
the fire (vv21-23). Can man destroy the inspired words of God? God
would have us know that His words are indestructible and eternal for He
will preserve and even restore them by His omnipotence and
omniscience. In verses 27, 28, and 32 we read, Then the word of the
LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the
words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee
again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the
first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned. Then took
Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe, the son of Neriah;
who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the book
which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned in the fire: and there were
added besides unto them many like words. Our omnipotent and
omniscient God is not only able to preserve His inspired words so that
644
Biblical Authority
none be lost, He is also able to restore them to perfection so that we today

might know His exact words and live by His every word (Matt 4:4).
Sola Scriptura
The Rev Seets concern that the absolute authority of the Holy
Scriptures should be restored to Gods people is admirable, and that is
what VPP does. VPP promotes and defends the absolute authority of the
Scriptures, that the Scriptures alone should be the supreme and final
authority of every Christians faith and practice (as stated in Life BPCs
Constitution, Article 4.2.1), and not any human being or textual critic. Let
it also be known that, contrary to what the Rev Wong thinks, the
Reformed position on the infallibility and authority of the Holy
Scriptures concerns the extant apographs and not the non-existent
autographs (see Turretin, Owen, Muller, Letis).
How was the authority of the Scriptures taken away from Gods
people and the common folk in the dark ages? It was taken away when
the RCC forbade the people from reading the Scriptures for themselves,
permitting only the clergy to read and interpret the Scriptures, and
prosecuting and executing anyone who dared to translate the Bible,
preach the Bible, and distribute the Bible to the people. It is clear that
VPP does none of these. VPP encourages people to study the Bible for
themselves, and is especially concerned that they study it from the
authentic and correct text, and not the heretical and corrupt one. In the
light of the logic of faith which is based on Gods promises of VPP as
taught in the Holy Scriptures, and Gods special providential work in
history and in the church, we identify the authentic Scriptures to be the
Traditional, Byzantine, Majority, and finally Received Text of the Church
Fathers, the Reformers, and the Reformation saints, and not the heretical
and corrupted Alexandrian, Minority, and Revised texts of liberals
Westcott and Hort, and ecumenical textual critics. With an infallibly
preserved original text and a very accurate translation of the Bible as
found in the AV/KJV, we tell the people they need not depend on socalled human authorities (textual and higher critical scholars) and their
theories and speculative methods, but can take Gods Word as is, the
infallible and inerrant Word which is absolutely authoritativeThus
saith the LORD, It is writtenin ascertaining truth from error. VPP
encourages the accurate and faithful translation of the Bible into different
languages that is based on the authentic and preserved text. Clearly, VPP
645
is directing Gods people to return to the sole and supreme authority of a

presently infallible and inerrant Scripture for all their beliefs and
practices.
It is not the VPP but the non-VPP position which has undermined
the absolute authority of the Scriptures, for to the non-VPPist, the perfect
Bible is only the intangible, unavailable, and inaccessible autographs
which all scholars admit are non-existent today. We, on the other hand,
believe in the infallible original manuscripts (apographs) that God has
supernaturally preserved. But as far as the Rev Colin Wong is concerned,
he says, I do not believe any single manuscript as being better than other
[sic] within the same family. The reason is that there are no two
manuscripts that are identical. So, the Rev Wong, with such imperfect
manuscripts or copies, must rely on fallible human scholars and their
man-made methods of textual criticism to decide or determine for him
which is Gods word and which is not. That is the reason why the
Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon Society, and FEBC are
steering clear of textual criticism. That is why FEBC contends that the
non-VPP position is not Sola Scriptura and is in fact against Sola
Scriptura because the textual critical scholar is now made the final
authority or an additional authority to the Scriptures.
Biblical Basis
The Rev Seet went on to argue that, nowhere in the Bible can we
find even a single verse that says or implies God will do this [i.e.
restoring His exact words] through the translators of the King James
Version and that He will do it in the year 1611. Such an argument is
fallacious, for if we accept this argument, then we must also reject the 27
books of the NT Canon, for where in the Bible do we find any verse
telling us that there will be a NT Canon and there are exactly 27 NT
books in our Protestant Bible without any change for sure? If the Rev
Seets argument is accepted, then should we not similarly question the
decision of the bishops of the Council of Carthage who identified for us
all the inspired books of the NT in the year 397? With the recent
discovery of new and older books like the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel
of Philip, and other Gospels and Epistles which bear the names of the
Apostles, should we not revise our existing Canon according to The Da
Vinci Code? Why should we be so dogmatic and insistent that our NT
Canon be just 27 books? Let it be stated that the very basis on which non646
Biblical Authority
VPPists believe in a fixed NT Canon of just 27 inspired NT books is the

very same reason why VPPists believe in all the inspired NT words of the
Greek Textus Receptus on which the AV/KJV is based.
It goes without saying that in this postmodern age of uncertainty and
confusion when anything goes, we need a fixed and firm foundation for
our faith, existing and tangible, available and accessible. This immutable
and immoveable foundation can only be our Lord Jesus Christ and His
forever infallible and inerrant Word to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18), and
nothing else. We continue to pray that the leadership of Life BPC will
uphold the AV/KJV not just by preference, but by affirming VPP and
believing that the original language texts or words of the Holy Scriptures
underlying the AV/KJV are without mistakes. If the foundations be
destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Ps 11:3). May God help us!
647
57
DID GOD WRITE ONLY ONE BIBLE?
Jeffrey Khoo
The Board of Elders of Life BPC, in a statement issued on January
25, 2008, accused me of misrepresenting their pastors in my article
Multiversions Onlyism (http://www.febc.edu.sg/VPP71.htm) which is a
critique of Dr James D Prices book against the KJV-Only position, a
book the Rev Yap Beng Shin (pastor of Olivet BPC) helped print and
promote. (Note that the KJV-Only position was upheld in Life BPCs
50 th Anniversary Magazine [1950-2000], and the Statement of
Reconciliation of January 5, 2003 by its Board of Elders when the
Rev Dr Timothy Tow was still pastor of Life BPC.)
It is no secret that the Rev Charles Seet and the Rev Colin Wong had
publicly joined hands with the Rev Yap Beng Shin and others to attack
the Biblical doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the
Scriptures, a doctrine (to them a heresy) which seeks to defend the KJV
and its underlying texts/words (see http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/
stmtvpp.htm). In my article, I simply stated the facts and made the logical
assumption, and not without reason. (I hope they will write a critique of
Prices pricy book to rid any appearance of evil, for his book has been
promoted in Singapore, especially in BP churches. Anyway, since I have
already done the work, why do they not simply accept my critique but
instead criticise me for defending the KJV and its underlying texts/
words?)
Now, could this not be the reason? The Rev Colin Wong, in his
sermonDid God Write Only One Bible?preached at Life BPC on
October 28, 2007, declared what is according to him Life BPCs position
on the quality of the manuscripts the KJV translators had in their
possession. In his sermon, he said: On this Reformation Sunday, I
would like to declare unto you what is Life BP Churchs position on
the Word of God. Thus I have entitled my message, Did God Write
Only One Bible?
648
Did God Write Only One Bible?
Since the translation of the KJV or the Authorized Version of

1611 there has been more concrete manuscript evidence that is
available today, which is far superior to that which was available to
the King James Version translators in 1611.
Now, if the manuscripts today are far superior to those of the KJV,
how then can Life BPC make the claim that the KJV and its underlying
texts are the best? It just does not make sense!
Later in his sermon, the Rev Wong criticised the Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures, and FEBCs defence of the
good old Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words on which the AV/KJV is
based, and claimed he is backed by the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS):
[T]he Trinitarian Bible Society and many other faithful and
truthful Bible scholars do not hold or support the VPP position. Mr A
J Brown of the Trinitarian Bible Society said and I spent many hours
with the staff there when I was in London ministering there.
I wrote to the Rev Malcolm Watts, Mr D P Rowland, and Mr David
Larlham, officers of the TBS, for clarification concerning Rev Wongs
view of the manuscript evidence and Mr A J Brown quoting his
words above. Mr David Larlham, the Assistant General Secretary of TBS,
was very kind to reply, and I quote him in full:
Thank you for your e-mail of 29th October about the Rev Colin Wongs
sermon Did God Write Only One Bible?. I am sorry it has taken us a
while to respond. As you have written to probably the three busiest men
within TBS, we regret to say that we have not had the opportunity to listen
to the sermon you mention. I think it must be acknowledged that we are
unlikely to find the opportunity for some time to come, in the midst of all
the other more pressing duties that lie upon us.
While it would be unfair to comment in any detail upon Mr Wongs
message without hearing it, I can state unequivocally on behalf of the
Society that the views you say that Mr Wong expressed concerning the
manuscripts available to the translators of the English Authorised
Version in 1611 are most definitely not those of TBS.
Whereas Dr David Allen, our current senior Deputation Speaker, most
consistently upholds and articulates the views held by the General
Committee of the Society, we would suggest that neither you nor the Rev
Wong should place any such reliance upon the comments of Mr
Andrew Brown going back around 20 years.
649

I trust that your deep concerns are allayed. From a careful perusal of our
current publications, our website, and our Statement of Doctrine of Holy
Scripture and Word List, it ought to be obvious where the Society stands,
and historically has always stood, on such matters. Where any member of
staff or representative may have deviated from those views, they had no
mandate to do so and no heed should be paid to any such statements.
Readers ought to note that Mr A J Brown, former editorial secretary

of the TBS, was quoted not only by the Rev Colin Wong, but also Life
BPCs Godly Path paper (http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/
godlypath.htm), and Calvary Jurongs Anti-VPP paper (http://
www.truth.sg/response/caljurong.htm) to discredit FEBC and its defence
of the KJV and its underlying texts or words.
I am thus heartened to know that TBS does not encourage placing a
reliance on Mr A J Browns views as expressed in 1984, and am
particularly delighted by TBSs excellent critique of the NKJV as
published in their Quarterly Record, October-December 2007 (http://
www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org). I would also recommend Dr David
Allens excellent lecture on the Special Providential Preservation of the
Word of God (http://www.bible-sermons.org.uk/audio-sermons/767special-providential-preservation-of-the-word-of-god).
Does the Board of Elders of Life BPC stand with the TBS on the
superiority of KJV and its underlying texts, and reject the modern corrupt
versions including the NKJV? If they do, then are we not on the same
page? If not, then it is they who are schismatic, not us. Let us not play
into the hands of Satan, the false accuser, who seeks to divide and
conquer. Both Life BPC and FEBC would only stand to lose if we do not
regroup to fight the good fight of faith to the glory of God. (Are they not
obliged to keep Article 6 of the Life BPC Constitution on Biblical
Separation?) Let us therefore follow the lead of our founding pastorthe
Rev Dr Timothy Towby taking a separatist stand for the KJV, against
Westcott and Hort and the modern versions, on the basis of truth,
earnestly contending for the once-for-all-settled faith based on the sole
and supreme authority of the forever infallible and inerrant words of God
in these last days of apostasy and compromise (Jude 3, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor 13:8).
650
58
MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NONE
EFFECT
An Examination of the Paper, Mark Them Which
Cause Divisions, by Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
Jeffrey Khoo
The Rev Charles Seet and the Elders of Life Bible-Presbyterian
Church (Life BPC) in their church weekly of January 13, 2008 published
a paper entitled, Mark Them Which Cause Divisions, denouncing the
Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Holy Scriptures as a heresy. (The
paper can be found in http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/markthem.htm.)
What is Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)?

What is Verbal Plenary Preservation or VPP? Verbal means
every word to the jot and tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18). Plenary means
the Scripture as a whole with all the words intact (Matt 24:35, 1 Pet
1:25). So VPP means the special, providential preservation of all the
inspired words of the Holy Scriptures to the last jot and tittle, without the
loss of any of the original words, prophecies, promises, commandments,
doctrines, and truths. As such, the VPP Scriptures are totally infallible
and inerrant not only in the words of salvation, but also the words of
history, geography and science. Every book, every chapter, every verse,
every word, every syllable, every letter of Gods inspired words is
supernaturally preserved by God Himself to the last iota.
What and where are the words of God today? They are the inspired
OT Hebrew/Aramaic words and NT Greek words the prophets, the
apostles, the church fathers, the reformers used which are today found in
the long and continuously abiding and preserved words underlying the
Reformation Bibles best represented by the time-tested and timehonoured KJV, and NOT in the corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts and
651
critical Westcott-Hort texts underlying the liberal, ecumenical, and neoevangelical modern English versions.
VPP a Heresy?
What is heresy? The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC
define heresy as a chosen course of thought or action which varies
from the true exposition of the Christian faith as prescribed by the Word
of God. They mention some examples of heresy from the ancient past,
namely, Gnosticism, Sabellianism, Arianism, and Nestorianism.
How do they identify a heresy? They say heresy has these three
characteristics: (1) it is new, (2) it is infectious, (3) it is destructive.
Actually, many heresies are not new but old ones with a new guise or
disguise (e.g. Arianism is today found in the Jehovahs Witnesses). What
is infectious and destructive is not necessarily heresy either for truth is
infectious and destructive as well (e.g. in the Protestant Reformation, the
doctrines of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Sola Scriptura spread quickly
and destroyed the superstitious yoke of the Roman Church). Anyway,
based on these criteria (i.e. new, infectious, and destructive), VPP is
condemned as heresy by the current leadership of Life BPC. They say
the mouths of heretics must be stopped at its source. The source of this
heresy is the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC).
First let us analyse their less than definitive definition of heresy.
They say heresy is a chosen course of thought or action. Yes, life is all
about choices, and our decisions to act according to our chosen paths.
Jesus says there are basically two ways and the way we choose will
determine our eternal destiny, Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is
the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there
be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it (Matt 7:13-14).
Choosing to think and act alone or to go with the minority is not heresy
or heretical (e.g. 1 Kgs 19:10), though heresy from the Greek
haireomai means to choose. I believe they understand that too. So, they
went on to say that a thought or act is heresy when it varies from the
true exposition of the Christian faith. But what constitutes true
exposition? Who determines what is true and what is not true? The
liberals, neo-evangelicals, charismatics, Roman Catholics, and cults all
claim to possess a true exposition of the Christian faith too.
652
Making the Word of God of None Effect
What is the Christian Faith?

So what is the Christian faith? Do they consider the Christian faith
to be defined by the Five Fundamentals, namely, (1) the inerrancy of
Scripture, (2) the virgin birth of Christ, (3) His miracles, (4)
substitutionary atonement and (5) resurrection? If they do, then why is
VPP a heresy when it affirms #1, the total inerrancy of the Holy
Scriptures which is the foundation of all our doctrines? By calling VPP a
heresy, are they saying that the Scriptures are no longer inerrant? And if
the Scriptures are no longer inerrant, how can they know for sure what
the Christian faith truly is as prescribed by the Word of God?
The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC must surely be aware
that their church constitution (article 4.2.1) states unequivocally that the
Word of God is infallible and inerrant and their supreme and final
authority in faith and life. So before they can really ascertain what is
orthodox and what is heretical they must first tell us precisely (1) what is
the Word of God, (2) where is the Word of God, and (3) which is the
Word of God, infallible and inerrant? Did they?
They say the KJV is the best English translation of the Scriptures,
made by godly translators from the best Greek and Hebrew texts. We
agree. They quoted the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.8) which
speaks of the singular care and providence of God in preserving His
Word and that we have the very Word of God and fully reliable. We
agree (but we are more precise in saying that God preserved not only His
Word but also His words to the jot and tittle according to Matthew 5:18
as quoted by the Westminster theologians). They identify the KJV to be
the very Word of God. We agree. But they say Gods Word is
providentially preserved in the body of manuscripts without saying
precisely which manuscripts. Now, are these manuscripts the Hebrew and
Greek texts the KJV translators used? Know that in their 2003 Statement
of Clarification, they say that the underlying texts of the KJV are not
perfect. Now if the underlying texts are not perfect, then how can they
know for sure they have the very Word of God and say they have
maximum certainty? Although they claim to base their judgement on
the very Word of God, they really do not have the very Word of God
since they condemn VPP as a heresy, and if they do have the very Word
of God, it is not exactly the Word of God as originally given, only a
close resemblance of it since it is not so perfect.
653
Can an inexact or imperfect Word of God be truly authoritative, or

prescriptive as they say? I submit that without a presently infallible and
inerrant Word of God to the jot and tittle (Matt 5:18), the Rev Charles
Seet and Elders of Life BPC have no basis whatsoever to condemn VPP
as a heresy and us as heretics. By condemning VPP as a heresy, they set
themselves up as the supreme and final authority in place of the Bible,
and judge the beliefs and practices of others based on their likes and
dislikes, their whim and fancy. At any rate, at least they no longer
misrepresent us as believing in an inspired KJV or a perfect version
but that we assign 100% purity to the Greek and Hebrew texts
immediately underlying the KJV, [that they] are the exact words of the
original writings, i.e. the very words used when God first gave His word
by inspiration to the Bible writers. We maintain that our position is
entirely consistent with Article 4.2.1 of the Life BPC Constitution.
Illogical Arguments
A failure to submit fully to the absolute authority of the Holy
Scriptures will lead to a logic that is upside down. For instance, the Rev
Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC say that the KJV is the best, that
the Hebrew and Greek texts are the best, that they have the very Word
of God which is fully reliable. But one wonders how they can have
such maximum certainty on the KJV as the very Word of God and
fully reliable if the Hebrew and Greek texts (i.e. the inspired original
language words) underlying it are not 100% pure or perfect (according to
their 2003 Statement of Clarification)? How can the KJV be 100%, the
best, the very Word of God as they say, without its underlying texts
being 100% also? It is simply illogical!
The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC lump those who teach
VPP together with the heretics (Gnostics, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians)
of times past. These men were heretics for sure for they were out to
destroy the Gospel by corrupting the Scriptures, by denying Christs
100% deity and/or 100% humanity and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
They teach doctrines that cause people to have a low view of the Holy
Scriptures, of Jesus Christ and of the Triune God, and by so doing tear
people away from the only Source and Foundation of salvation which is
Christ and His words. This is what heresy does and what heretics do.
Does VPP cause people to have a low view of the Bible? Does VPP
destroy the Gospel? Does VPP tear people away from Christ? It is clear
654
as day that VPP does none of these! VPP upholds the present perfection
of the Holy Scriptures! VPP gives people confidence in the Gospel of
Jesus Christ by affirming that they can trust every single word of the
Bible which teaches the preexistence of Christ, His virgin birth, His
sinless life, His crucifixion, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension,
and everything else it teaches without any mistake! VPP instills in people
full confidence in the Reformation Biblethe Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek words God has inspired in the beginning and preserved
continuously in the traditional, Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Greek
Byzantine or Majority manuscripts and finally the Textus Receptus
which gave us the Tyndale and Geneva translations and best of all the
Authorised or King James Version which God has used to bless so many
millions in the last four centuries!
The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC appear to be upset
that more and more people are having a high confidence on the KJV by
believing in the biblical truth of VPP. More and more believers are
blessed by this truth of the Scriptures present perfection in the original
languages. Many of the saints praise the Lord for VPP because it glorifies
their Triune God (1 John 5:7). Our night classes are attended by 200-300
people coming from 38 different churches (BP and non-BP). They are
very glad to hear that our almighty God has indeed kept His promise to
preserve His inspired words to the last jot and tittle (Matt 5:18). They
now have every confidence to live by His every word (Matt 4:4) in the
midst of a wicked and crooked generation. Why cannot they rejoice with
their fellow brethren over this?
It is tragic that the Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC, instead
of encouraging the faith of the saints to believe in the present perfection
of Scriptures, are doing all they can to hinder and stop the preaching and
teaching of this precious truth to our students. Not only that, by one
stroke of their pen, they condemned as heretics their spiritual father
Timothy Tow, FEBC, True Life, Truth, Calvary Jaya BPCs, and all who
believe in VPP. (Thankfully, we are not living in medieval days when
heretics like Huss and Tyndale were burned at the stake, but even if we
were, it would have been a privilege to be martyred for Christ of whom
we are most unworthy.)
Now, if there is no such a thing as a Perfect Bible today, available,
accessible, and identifiable, then on what basis do they judge that VPP is
a heresy and we are heretics? Is it through a vision, a dream, a voice? Or
655
is it through the Bible? And if it is through the Bible, then how do they
know it is right if the Bible is not so right or not so perfect today? That
was why the psalmist wrote, If the foundations be destroyed, what can
the righteous do? (Ps 11:3). I submit that when they judge and condemn
us who believe in a Perfect Bible as heretics, they do so out of their own
thinking and feelingsthey set themselves up as the supreme standard
and authority to judge and condemn others.
The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC seem to think that just
because a doctrine is divisive or leads to a division, it is therefore a
heresy. If that is the case, then should they not call Jesus a heretic too for
Jesus said, Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you,
Nay; but rather division (Luke 12:51)? God forbid!
They say they believe in the Preeminence of Christ. If so, I truly
hope they will see Jesus Christ as the Perfect Standard and follow His
truthful and loving ways by retracting their malicious and defamatory
statements made against fellow Christians who uphold the total
infallibility and inerrancy of the divinely inspired and preserved words of
God (VPI/VPP). Jesus is not now on earth to teach us directly, but He has
left us with His Holy Spiritwho is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17), and
His Holy Scriptureswhich is the Word of Truth (John 17:17). These are
our Perfect Standards today to judge what is truth and what is error, what
is right and what is wrong.
No Change in the VPP Truth

Truth does not change, and VPP does not change either. Although
we have quoted certain godly men and institutions, it does not mean that
they are infallible or incapable of making mistakes. We quote them only
when they say the right things according to the Scriptures. So yes, we
admit our quotations of them have been selective. We follow them only if
they follow the Scriptures, just as Paul tells the believers to follow him as
he follows Christ (1 Cor 11:1). By the way, I did not arrive at VPP by
reading Wilkinson, a 7th Day Adventist. I came to this position by reading
Burgon (Anglican), Hills (Presbyterian), and Waite (Baptist), and
examining what they teach in the light of Scripture, and I am throughly
convinced by Scripture and Scripture alone, my supreme and final
authority of faith and practice. Furthermore, to conclude that VPP is 7th
Day Adventism because of Wilkinson is another piece of twisted logic. I
eat rice, the Malays eat rice, so I am Malay?
656
The Rev Charles Seet and Elders of Life BPC question the verbally
and plenarily preserved text by saying that it mutates into more virulent
forms over time. There was no mutation, no evolution! The verbally and
plenarily inspired (VPI) words, by special providence, are all preserved in
Bezas 5 th which was the main Greek Text used by the King James
translators, plus all the earlier ones by Erasmus and Stephanus, and put
together by Scrivener. The inspired and preserved text (words) underlying
the KJV is known by various namesthe Traditional Text, the Common
Text, the Standard Text, the Received Text, the Reformation Text, the
Ecclesiastical Text. What is so virulent about them? The various names
given to the text underlying the KJV may be new or recent, but the words
in the text are certainly not new for they are as old as the Biblethe very
inspired words of the autographs God has preserved by His singular care
and providence in the faithful apographs, and not the corrupt ones of
Westcott and Hort.
Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his
friend (Prov 27:17). Constructive debates have their place as we seek to
express the truth clearly and accurately. Improvements and refinements to
statements of faith that square with the Scriptures are neither mutations
nor virulent. Truth is Truth, Gods Word is Truth, and we can do
nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor 13:8). The Rev Charles
Seet and Elders of Life BPC themselves admit that our VPP statements
have become more plausible and appealing. That is because it is
based on the truth of Gods Word, and the Holy Spirit is guiding His
people to His truth (John 16:13). But instead of acknowledging the truth
when they see it, they now seek to hinder the truth by calling it heresy,
and stirring up hatred by such emotive terms as gangrene-like,
payload, venomous, virulent, toxic, destructive, horror. It is
not safe, dear friends, to change the truth of God into a lie (Rom 1:25).
But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie
not against the truth (Jas 3:14).
We are living in a postmodern age which resists any 100% certainty
of truth and morality. The desire of this age is to be vague, so that
everything can be open to personal interpretation and subjective
judgement. It goes without saying that truth is not vague, but precise.
Jesus said, But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for
whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (Matt 5:37). That is why
FEBC says Yes to the Word of God, and takes a declared position for
657
the jot-and-tittle preservation of the Scriptures without doubt so that we

might live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God
(Matt 4:4, 5:18). It behoves every believer to resist the postmodern
philosophy which aims to destroy the forever infallible and inerrant
words of God (Pss 12:6-7, 119:89), and the once-for-all-settled faith of
the saints (Jude 3). But what have the Rev Charles Seet and Elders of
Life BPC done? It is very sad to see them bent on destroying FEBC and
VPP by choosing to say No to the very Word of God in all its present
perfection by quoting the traditions, opinions and methods of men,
thereby making the Word of God of none effect (Mark 7:13).
It is utter folly and stupidity to make the Word of God of none effect
when God Himself has magnified His Word above all His Name (Ps
138:3). Why is it so hard to believe that the Bible is 100% perfect,
without any mistake, today? Know that without faith it is impossible to
please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that
He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Heb 11:6). Things
that are impossible with men are possible with God (Matt 19:26).
658
59
A REVIEW OF JACK SINS ARTICLE, A GRAVE
MATTER: VERITY, SAGACITY AND CLARITY IN
THE TEXTUAL DEBATE
Biak Lawm Thang
Introduction
A Grave Matter: Verity, Sagacity and Clarity in the Textual
Debate is an article written by the Rev Dr Jack Sin, pastor of Maranatha
Bible-Presbyterian Church, Singapore.1 Rev Sin wrote this article with a
concern over the textual issue being debated among Bible-Presbyterian
churches in Singapore, which he sees as causing grievous events,
devastating disunity and heated disagreements within the churches,
Christian families and kindred friends. The problem caused by this
debate, we are told by Rev Sin, goes beyond a local level and affects
foreign missions. Under these circumstances, therefore, his purpose is to
offer an objective and biblical appraisal of that textual debate. This is a
noble goal, for the Christian must always be objective and biblical in
his approach to all things, but whether Rev Sin himself has fulfilled this
or not remains to be seen.
On Honesty in Biblical Scholarship

Rev Jack Sin called for honesty in biblical scholarship
particularly in the area of the New Testament Greek Text debate. This is
certainly commendable, and it may be added that honesty must be
cultivated not only in this area but also in all areas of Christian living
(Rom 12:17; 2 Cor 8:21; Phil 4:8; 1 Pet 2:12; Matt 5:37; 2 Cor 1:7; Jas
5:12).
But what does Rev Sin mean by honest biblical scholarship? An
analysis of his entire paper shows that what Rev Sin means by honesty
in the NT textual issue is to conclude that all the words of God are not
preserved exclusively in the Textus Receptus (TR) underlying the King
James Version (KJV) but in all the providentially preserved Majority or
659
Traditional or Byzantine Greek manuscripts of over 5,000, and his

contention that the divine, perfect preservation of Gods words in the
Greek New Testament underlying the KJV cannot be biblically or
theologically proven.
Rev Sin believes that the Byzantine family of manuscripts, not the
Alexandrian family, preserves the words of God. But it may be observed
that when it comes to the Greek printed texts that represent those over
5,000 manuscripts, his commitment to honesty has made him unable to
know or identify the inspired and preserved words in the various editions
of the TR. At this point, he disagrees with Dr Edward F Hills whom he
appears to follow since he quotes him frequently as an authority, for Hills
had no problem identifying the Greek Text of the KJV to be Gods
approved Text. A portion from Hills which Rev Sin failed to quote,
though he should have in the quest for honesty in biblical scholarship,
reads,
But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the
Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The
answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence
we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other
God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely
the King James Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the
King James Version.2
It is a fact that there exists variant readings in the Greek manuscripts

that number over 5,000 and that even in the TR editions there are a few
minor differences. This is admitted by those who believe in the doctrine
of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) for it is a fact, and hence it is
wrong to imply otherwise. Yes, Hills (and others as well) does recognise
the existence of those variants and the difficulty in making a textual
decision in certain cases, yet he does not stop there, for a specific
identification of the text is necessary if every word of God is to be
authoritative, and he did identify the KJV Greek Text to be the Godapproved Text as the above quotation shows. For practical purposes,
others like the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), which has been quoted by
the Rev Sin as another authority, also uses the KJV Greek Text as edited
by F H A Scrivener.3 What the VPPists believe is no different. The
VPPists believe that out of the several editions of the TR, the TR
underlying the KJV is the best and purest for it perfectly preserves all the
words of God originally given by divine inspiration. As such, holding the
660
A Review of Jack Sins Article
TR of the KJV in our hands, we can say without apology, This is the
very Word of God. (Note that the issue is not about translations, but the
Bible in the original languages.)
Such a Bible position means that there is no need for the Bible
scholar to practise textual criticism. The Bible scholar or student can
confidently use and devote his time to the sincere exposition of the truth
of Gods words, not doubting the text at all. Hills is thus an honest
textual scholar, for though he recognises the difficulty in the textual
issue, he calls on Christians to be guided by the logic of faith to
identify specifically the Greek Text of the KJV to be the God-approved
Text in the light of Gods special providence. Is this not precisely what
has always been taught by VPPists? Honesty in the textual debate
should not fail to mention Hillss precise identification of the
providentially preserved and authentic Text to be the Greek Text of the
KJV.
Rev Sins quotation of J W Burgon also appears to lack honesty.
Although he pays tribute to Burgon for his defence of the historic faith
and the Bible, his quotations contain only a few portions of Burgons
inconsistent statements on the textual issue. Many good points Burgon
made about the TR in opposition to the Alexandrian manuscripts are not
made known to the readers. Honesty in biblical scholarship should be
unbiased in the assessment of the issue at hand by presenting the
necessary facts so that the readers can judge for themselves.
On Plurality of Manuscripts and Singularity of Text

Rev Jack Sin provides a clarification of his and Maranatha BPCs
position on the textual matter, which denies the VPP position. He
believes that the perpetual preservation of Gods words lies in the
plurality of Byzantine-type manuscripts. He went on to say that the TR
underlying the KJV does NOT fully represent the full body of the
providentially and perpetually preserved Byzantine or Traditional
(or sometimes called Majority) Text. While this may sound appealing,
it must be pointed out that this position essentially leads to uncertainty
about textual variants, whereas the VPP position identifies exactly where
and what the inspired words are by the logic of faith.
Moreover, this question must be asked: On what basis does Rev
Jack Sin base his plurality of the Byzantine manuscripts position over the
TR position? He has failed to provide even a single testimony in the
661
infallible Scriptures to support his plurality of manuscripts position

which has perpetually failed to identify the precise text or words of God.
This means that Rev Sin still has to play the subjective and rationalistic
game of textual criticism before he can proceed to do his exegesis, at
least in some areas. How then can he claim that his position is objective
and biblical? A person may believe whatever he wants, but the important
question is: Is it proven or justified by the Holy Scriptures? Having
rejected the biblical passages of Psalms 12:6-7, 19:7, 119:89, Isaiah 40:8,
Matthew 5:18, 24:35, 1 Corinthians 13:8 which teach the doctrine of VPP
either explicitly or implicitly, Rev Sin is left without any biblical basis
for his position. If this is so, then he has arrived at his conclusion by
means of his subjective interpretation or view of the Greek manuscripts,
and not on any objective, biblical or exegetical grounds!
The most important thing in the textual issue (and in all other
matters as well) is that no one should build his faith on the fallible
authority of men, but on the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures.
However appealing a certain position might appear, if it is not squarely
built on or concretely substantiated by Scripture, then it is only an
opinion void of authority. A child of God must rest his faith on the
testimony of the infallible Scripture and on it alone. Is belief in the
present or rather the forever perfection of the words of God biblical?
These passages Deuteronomy 8:3; Psalms 12:6-7, 19:7, 119:89; Proverbs
30:5; Matthew 4:4, 5:18, 24:35; Luke 4:4, 16:1, 21:33; John 10:35 say
Yes.
Failing to substantiate his position from the infallible Scriptures,
Rev Sin appealed to human authority. The authorities he quoted include
the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), International Council of
Christian Churches (ICCC), Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS), and
Pensacola Christian College (PCC). It must be pointed out that no human
authority is exempt from making mistakes. Admittedly it is not
uncommon in theological debates to quote human authority, and it is
certainly justifiable if the quotation is made within the boundaries of the
Holy Scriptures which are our sole and supreme authority of faith and
practice. But the question that needs to be raised is: Did Rev Sin quote
correctly in the right context for the right purpose? One finds it difficult
to say yes. For instance, the TBS identifies the texts it accepts as the true
texts: The Trinitarian Bible Society recognises and receives the
Masoretic Hebrew and Greek Received Texts as providentially preserved
662
A Review of Jack Sins Article
and authentic. As to the qualities of these texts, the TBS says, These
texts of Scripture reflect the qualities of God-breathed Scripture,
including being authentic, holy, pure, true, infallible, trustworthy,
excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous, selfinterpreting, authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9, Psalm 119). They
are consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra 7:14;
Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct reading at any
point is to be sought within these texts.4 This is a fine statement based
on Scripture and it does not contradict the VPP position. To insinuate
otherwise would suggest a lack of honesty and a failure to be
objective. A close study of the other authorities he quoted will find
them to be quite in line with VPP.
On Other Language Bibles and Other Matters

Rev Jack Sin rightly notes that no translation of one language to
another will ever be perfect. It should also be noted that no VPPist
would assign perfection to a translation. The whole issue is all about the
Bible in the original languages. VPP is not against other language Bibles
which have been faithfully translated from the providentially preserved
Masoretic Hebrew Text and Greek Textus Receptus.
Rev Sins admonition to avoid excessively emotive tone in the
defence of Gods Word, however, is instructive and should be taken to
heart. Words or tone, which may cause offence unnecessarily, when the
truth can be presented otherwise without compromise, should be
carefully avoided. The defence of Gods Word should be carried out by
presenting the truth as clearly as possible without any compromise and
yet in love, meekness and in all wisdom so that it may have its full effect
(Eph 4:2; 1 Pet 3:15; Col 1:28). Caricature, insinuation,
misrepresentation and disparagement should have no place, for they will
only blind the truth, and thus do no service to the cause of the truth.
Rev Sins mention of the problem of NPP (New Perspective on
Paul) and the Human Quest for Perfection is entirely irrelevant to the
current textual debate. One wonders why such mention is made at all.
Neither is Rev Sin clear about the reason why he brings up these two
categorically different matters. Is it an attempt to put VPP in the same
box? One hopes not.
663
Conclusion
Rev Jack Sins expressed intention to assess the textual issue
objectively and biblically with the spirit of honesty is surely
commendable. Every theological issue must be appraised objectively and
biblically. However, after analysis, the paper gives one the impression
that the Rev Sin has fallen short of his noble goal, for he has no biblical
authority for his own plurality of manuscripts position over against the
perfect preservation of words position of VPPists which he is attempting
to refute. Neither was he entirely fair in his quotation of the works of
others nor unbiased in his presentation of the opposing view. His
appraisal which is destitute of biblical proof, citing only human
authorities with partial quotations, cannot be considered biblical, or
objective or honest.
Since Rev Sins position is without biblical proof, he should not put
in a bad light the VPPists who are able to support their position from
Scripture, for that is a disservice to the cause of Christ. He should not
engage in the unfruitful and unedifying work of criticising and
disparaging the doctrine of VPP which is built upon the infallible
testimony of the Scripture itself, but should rather re-examine his own
position whether it is really tenable or found wanting when weighed on
the biblical scale. Any position which lacks basis from the infallible and
inerrant Scriptures needs urgent and serious re-examination. Only Gods
Truth will stand forever, For we can do nothing against the truth, but for
the truth (2 Cor 13:8).
Notes
http://www.maranatha-bpc.com; http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/
Rev Jack Sin - A Grave Matter.pdf.
2
Edward F Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa:
The Christian Research Press, 1984), 223, italics added. Take note also that Hills
uttered these words at the concluding part of his treatise.
3
Trinitarian Bible Society, Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture, http:
//www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf, 6.
4
Ibid, 4.
1
664
PART V
Historia
665
60
THE STORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE
A Comparison between Faithful Bibles of the Protestant
Reformation and Corrupt Versions of Modern-Day
Deformation
Jeffrey Khoo
Albert Einstein once said, A man with one watch knows what time
it is, a man with two watches is never sure. Allow me to restate Einstein
by making it applicable to the Bible: A Christian with one Bible
knows what the Truth is, a Christian with two Bibles is never sure.
There is but one Bible (the 100% inspired and 100% preserved
Bible in the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) though
there be many translations of it. Insofar as translations go, there are good
versions and there are bad versions. Bad versions are due to a corrupt
base-text or a wrong translation method, or they could be due to both.
The English translations of the Bible can be divided into two main
periods of production: Versions produced in (1) the period of the
Reformation (16th and 17th century), and those produced in (2) the period
of Deformation (19th and 20th century).
Reformation Translations
No Bible, no Reformation! Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God (Rom 10:17). It is Gods Word that brought about
the 16th century Protestant Reformation. The Reformation did not happen
by chance or by accident. It was a special event preplanned by God and it
finally happened in Gods perfect time. According to Church historian
Philip Schaff, The Reformation of the 16 th Century is, next to the
Lord Jesus Christ came miraculously in the fullness of the time (Gal
4:4), so did the Reformation. In light of Biblical precedents and Divine
666
The Story of the English Bible

The Reformation fire was lit by the Light of Gods Word. The Word
of God had to be put into the hands of the common folk. The Lord used
His servants like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and finally the King
James translators to put the Bible into the hands of the people in the pew
so that they might know the truth, and the truth shall make them see and
set them free (John 8:32).
Wycliffes Translation
John Wycliffe (1330-1384) was the most famous Oxford theologian
of the 14th century. He was called The morning star of the Reformation
for his attacks against the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church.
Wycliffe spoke against the false RCC doctrine that salvation was by
works and the selling of indulgences or forgiveness tickets. He
believed the Scriptures to be the perfect Word of God from Gods very
own mouth and superior to the sayings of the pope or the Church. He was
told to stop teaching his personal convictions as truth. All who taught or
defended Wycliffes views were threatened with excommunication and
execution. This threat did not deter Wycliffe from defending the faith.
Gifted with a sharp pen, he continued to write in defence of the truth.
The RCC had kept the people in spiritual darkness and bondage. No
one was allowed to read or even own the Bible. Only the priest could
read and interpret the Bible for the people. One can imagine that the
interpretations of Scripture would be twisted to fit the corrupt doctrines
and practices of the Roman Church.
Wycliffe realised that the best way of freeing the people from the
shackles of Rome was to let the people read the Bible for themselves.
Wycliffe was the first to translate the whole Bible into English. The
translation was done not from the Hebrew and Greek since Wycliffe
knew no Hebrew nor Greek, but from the Latin Biblethe Vulgate.
Although the translation was not as accurate as could be since it was not
from the original languages, it was accurate enough for Gods purpose to
be fulfilled. At long last, the people could finally read for themselves the
truth of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.
It has to be noted that it was not easy to mass produce the Bible in
Wycliffes day because the printing press has yet to be invented. To
667
produce one copy of the Bible would take about 10 months. One copy
would cost about 5000 chickens. How much would it cost to buy that
many chickens today? Since it was so costly, the Bible was sold in parts
or in pages. Some could only pay a few cents just to have the New
Testament to read for just a day.
To spread the gospel truth, a group of pastors known as the Lollards
used Wycliffes translation to read and preach the Word to the common
folk. For reading the Bible and preaching the gospel to the people, many
of these Lollards were burned to death. Many copies of Wycliffes Bible
were also burned. Nevertheless, the production of Wycliffes Bible could
not be stopped, and the world today still has 200 copies of it. Faith is the
victory, and the Bible is indestructible.
Wycliffes Bible spearheaded the Reformation movement which led
many to reject the falsehoods of the RCC. It goes without saying that the
RCC hated Wycliffe intensely. Their hatred for him was so great that they
did all they could to dishonour him at the 40th anniversary of his demise.
Seeking to wipe out all memory of Wycliffe, the RCC dug up his bones,
burned them, and cast the ashes into the River Swift. God would see to it
that such a disgraceful act of wicked men would serve only to hasten the
Reformation instead of deterring it. The more the Truth is opposed, the
more it will flourish. The Truth cannot be snuffed out. As Luther later
wrote, The body they may kill, his truth abideth still; His kingdom is
forever.
Tyndales Translation
William Tyndale (1494-1536) was a scholar of the Hebrew and
Greek Scriptures having studied at Oxford and Cambridge. Seeing how
the priests were so ignorant of the Scriptures, and how the people were so
lost without Gods Word, he decided to translate the Scriptures into
English from the original languages. He completed translating the NT in
1525. 15,000 copies were printed and distributed in England. The Church
of England then under the Roman Catholic Church refused to allow the
people to read the English NT. The Church burned every copy of
Tyndales Bible they could find. For translating the Scriptures, the
Church branded Tyndale a criminal. He was arrested and put in prison.
When in prison, Tyndale wrote this letter to the Marquis of Bergen
which revealed how greatly he loved the Bible and how much he suffered
for Christ: I believe, right worshipful, that you are not unaware of what
668
may have been determined concerning me. Wherefore I beg your

lordship, and that by the Lord Jesus, that if I am to remain here through
the winter, you will request the commissary to have the kindness to send
me, from the goods of mine which he has, a warmer cap; for I suffer
greatly from cold in the head, am afflicted by a perpetual catarrh, which
is much increased in this cell; a warmer coat also, for this which I have is
very thin; a piece of cloth too to patch my leggings. My overcoat is worn
out; my shirts are also worn out. He has a woollen shirt, if he will be
good enough to send it. I have also with him leggings of thicker cloth to
put on above; he has also warmer night caps. And I ask to be allowed to
have a lamp in the evening; it is indeed wearisome sitting alone in the
dark. But most of all I beg and beseech your clemency to be urgent with
the commissary that he will kindly permit me to have the Hebrew bible,
Hebrew grammar, and Hebrew dictionary, that I may pass the time in that
study. In return may you obtain what you most desire, provided that it be
consistent with the salvation of your soul. But if any other decision has
been taken concerning me, to be carried out before winter, I will be
patient, abiding by the will of God, to the glory of the grace of my Lord
Jesus Christ, whose spirit (I pray) may ever direct your heart. Amen.
Tyndale was finally condemned to death. He was strangled and
burned at the stake. Tyndale was ready to die for His Lord and His Truth:
That light oer all thy darkness, Rome, in triumph might arise; an exile
freely I become, freely a sacrifice. His dying words were: Lord, open
the King of Englands eyes.
Coverdales Translation
Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) was a graduate of Cambridge
University who became an Augustinian priest. Influenced by the
Reformation movement, he broke away from the Roman Catholic
Church. From England, he fled to the Continent where he found Tyndale
and there helped Tyndale with his translation work. Coverdale continued
Tyndales work and completed translating the Old Testament. The whole
Coverdale Bible was completed in 1535.
By that time, the King of England had already broken all ties with
Rome, and was eager to see an English Bible. Coverdales Bible received
the kings approval. Tyndales prayer was answered; the Lord had opened
the eyes of the king of England.
669
Great Bible
In 1537, another Bible was published in England called the
Matthews Bible. It was the work of Thomas Matthew (1500-55) who
was a friend of Tyndale. Thomas Matthew was not a translator but an
editor of the Bible. He combined the Tyndale and Coverdale translations
to form a complete Bible. The Matthews Bible was the basis for the
Great Bible. Published in 1539, it received the kings authorisation for
public use. It is called the Great Bible for its size and cost. The Great
Bible was later revised in 1568 and became known as the Bishops Bible.
Geneva Bible
The persecution of the reformers by the Roman Catholic Church led
many of them to seek refuge in Geneva. It was in that great city that
William Whittingham (1524-79)Calvins brother-in-law, and Knoxs
successor as pastor of the English Church in Genevatranslated the NT
in what was to become the Geneva Bible. Whittingham used the Textus
Receptus (Stephanus edition), and next to Tyndale became the version
that had the most influence on the KJV. The Geneva Bible was both
Calvinistic and anti-Catholic. It became very popular with the people
because it was inexpensive and handy. The KJV was its successor.
King James Bible
The King James Bible (KJB/KJV) is built upon all the Reformation
versions of the English Bible and is undoubtedly the best English version
of all. It has stood the test of time and blessed many millions all over the
world in the last 400 years.
There are four reasons why the KJV is superior to all other English
Bible versions:
It Is Based on a Verbally and Plenarily Preserved Text
All Christians should believe in the inspiration and preservation of
Scripture (2 Tim 3:16, Ps 12:6-7). Jesus used the OT Scripture during His
earthly ministry, and considered every word of it to be inspired. In Matt
5:18, He said, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. This surely implies that the
Hebrew Scriptures have been preserved through the centuries, to the
extent that every bit of it has been left intact. If God has so providentially
preserved the words of the OT Scriptures so that none of them is lost, will
He not also preserve the NT Scriptures in the same way? Based on Gods
promises and power, we can say with certainty that we have the
670
autographs of the NT in the verbally and plenarily preserved Hebrew and

Greek manuscripts (or words) on which the KJV is based.
It Is Translated by Godly and Able Scholars
The King James Version is an excellent translation of the Holy
Scriptures. It is a good fruit. It is a good fruit because it comes from a
good tree (Matt 7:15-20). The KJV is a good translation because of good
translators; in terms of their intellect and learning, they were brilliant;
and in their faith and devotion towards God, they were vibrant. There
were a total of 54 scholars of the highest rank who translated the KJV.
They were not only men of great learning but also of great piety. They
were skilled in the biblical languages, and lived in a period when the
English language was at its glorious height. It was a most providentially
opportune time to translate the Scriptures into the English tongue. They
began their work in 1604 and completed it in 1611a total of seven
years. I do not think that today one can assemble such an august company
of devout Bible scholars and theologians.
The KJV is a result of Gods special providence. Consider
Alexander McClures Evaluation of the KJ Translators and Translation.
He wrote, As to the capability of those men, we may say again, that by
the good Providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate
time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then
ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental
tongues, ... had then be carried to a greater extent in England than ever
before or since. ... it is confidently expected that the reader of these pages
will yield to the conviction, that all the colleges of Great Britain and
America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the
same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the
great undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled
with those mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any one
Christian denomination, or out of all, a body of translators, on whom the
whole Christian community would bestow such confidence as is reposed
upon that illustrious company, or who would prove themselves as
deserving of such confidence (Translators Revived, 63-4).
How do new versions and their translators compare to the KJV and
its translators? According to McClure, As to the Bible in its English
form, it is safe to assume the impossibility of gathering a more competent
body of translators, than those who did the work so well under King
671
Jamess commission. ... And what has not been done by the most able and
best qualified divines, is not likely to be done by obscure pedagogues,
broken-down parsons, and sectaries of a single idea, and that a wrong
one,who, from different quarters, are talking big and loud of their
amended, improved, and only correct and reliable re-translations, and
getting up American and Foreign Bible Unions to print their
sophomorical performances. How do such shallow adventurers appear
along side of those venerable men ... The newly-risen versionists, with all
their ambitious and pretentious vaunts are not worthy to carry satchels
after those masters of learning. Imagine our greenish contemporaries shut
up with an Andrews, a Reynolds, a Ward, and a Bois, comparing notes on
the meaning of the original Scriptures! It would soon be found, that all
the aid of our moderns could render would be in snuffing the candles, ...
Let tinkers stick to the baser metals; and heaven forefend that they should
clout the vessels of the sanctuary with their clumsy patches (Translators
Revived, 233-4).
I dare say that the Bible scholars, theologians, and linguists of today
fail to come even close to the calibre of scholarship and spirituality that
we find in the King James translators. I sincerely doubt that the KJV will
ever be surpassed by a superior translation. In any case, until the Lord
providentially raises up equally faithful and competent servants to give us
a new version which is equally accurate and reliable, let us stick to the
good old versionthe KJV.
It Is Accurately Translated Word for Word
The KJV employs a superior method of translation. The KJV uses
the verbal/formal over against the dynamic equivalence method of
translation. The verbal/formal equivalence method is the only acceptable
method for the translation of the Holy Scriptures. Why? Simply because
the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God!
God gave a very serious warning in Rev 22:18, For I testify unto
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any
man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that
are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words
of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book
of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in
this book. In any attempt to translate the Scriptures, it is paramount that
there should be no addition to, subtraction from, and changing of Gods
672
Word. It must be word for word translated without any alteration of its
divine sense or intent.
The dynamic equivalence method is a subjective and interpretive
thought-for-thought method. Such a method may be applied to human
literature, but certainly not Holy Scripture. The Bibles divine origin and
its verbal inerrancy forbid it. Virgin must be translated virgin, and
not young woman (as in the RSV), and blood must be translated
blood, and not death (as in the TEV), and only begotten must be
translated only begotten, and not just one and only (as in the NIV).
It Is Faithful to Historic Protestant Theology
The KJV preserves all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
Faith like the (1) Inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), (2) Preservation
of Scripture (Ps 12:6-7), (3) Virgin Birth of Christ (Isa 7:14), (4) Eternal
Generation of Christ (John 1:14,18, 3:16,18, 1 John 4:9), (5) the Holy
Trinity (1 John 5:7-8), (6) the deity and humanity of Christ (1 Tim 3:16),
and many others. The modernistic 20th century versions on the other hand
have unfaithfully manipulated these Biblical texts to change or corrupt
these and other fundamental truths of the Christian faith.
One fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that is undermined
or attacked by the modern versions is the doctrine of the Trinity. They
attack this important doctrine by scissoring out the clearest proof-text for
the doctrine of the Trinity which is 1 John 5:7, For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. Some will argue that the absence of 1 John 5:7 does
not affect the doctrine of the Trinity because there are many other biblical
passages that teach it. The doctrine to them is thus not lost. While the
doctrine may not be lost, a very strong testimony for it has surely been.
Which other scriptural passage is as crystal clear as 1 John 5:7 in
expressing the unity of the three Persons of the Godhead? We lose a very
valuable proof-text by such flippant statements against the traditional
preserved text in favour of the critical cut-up text. This is not a small
matter as some would like to think. Paul warned, a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump (Gal 5:9). The 7% of missing words in the
Scripture in the modern versions may be considered very little, but it is
this little leaven that is destructive to Gods Word, and to His Church.
Furthermore, God has promised to preserve all of His words not just His
doctrines, and by faith in His promise of perfect preservation, we believe
1 John 5:7 are the inspired words of God as given in the original.
673
Deformation Versions
The KJV has been the undisputed Bible of the English world since
1611. But a turning point came in the late 19th century. It was a period of
time when theological liberalism was at its height. Not only were the
fundamentals of the Christian Faith attacked, the words of God were
altered by such liberals as Westcott, and Hort.
In 1881, Westcott and Hort produced their edition of the Greek NT.
This Greek edition differed greatly from the Greek NT underlying the
KJV. Westcott and Hort made no less than 9970 changes to the inspired
and preserved Greek NT underlying the KJV. Their Greek NT was based
on corrupt and unreliable manuscripts, namely, the Codex Sinaiticus and
Codex Vaticanus. The corruptions of the Westcott and Hort had been ably
and convincingly exposed by Dean Burgon.
A multitude of English versions based on the Westcott and Hort text
have been produced. This brought about the steady doctrinal and practical
declension of the Church, and that is one reason why there is widespread
apostasy and compromise in the Church today.
Revised Version
The RV of 1885 (NT: 1881) was the first version that sought to
correct the KJV. This was so desired because of the emergence of the
new but corrupt text of Westcott and Hort which differed significantly
from the Textus Receptus underlying the KJV. The WH Text differed
from the TR in 5,788 places. Among those invited to produce the RV
were apostates and heretics, namely, (1) Westcott and Hort themselves,
(2) John Henry Newman#1 Roman Catholic theologian in the English
speaking world at that time, (3) G Vance Smitha Unitarian (i.e. one
who denies the doctrine of the Trinity).
In his bookThe Revision Revised (1883), Dean Burgon ably
exposed the errors of the WH Text from which the RV was translated. For
example, in the WH Text, Luke 23:34: Then said Jesus, Father, forgive
them; for they know not what they do is absent; and a marginal note
says, some ancient authorities omit. Burgon, in holy indignation, wrote
against this blatant attack on Gods Word, These twelve precious words
... Drs. Westcott and Hort enclose within double brackets in token of the
moral certainty they entertain that the words are spurious. And yet these
words are found in every known uncial and in every known cursive Copy,
except four; besides being found in every ancient Version: and, what,
674
(we ask the question with sincere simplicity),what amount of evidence

is calculated to inspire undoubting confidence in any existing Reading, if
not such a concurrence of Authorities as this? ... We forbear to insist upon
the probabilities of the case. The Divine power and sweetness of the
incident shall not be enlarged upon. We introduce no considerations
resulting from Internal Evidence. True, that few verses of the Gospels
bear in themselves a sure witness to the Truth of what they record, than
this. (It is the admission of the very man [i.e. Dr Hort] who has
nevertheless dared to brand it with suspicion.) But we reject his
loathsome patronage with indignation. Internal evidence,
Transcriptional Probablity, and all such chaff and draff, with which
he fills his pages ad nauseam, and mystifies nobody but himself,shall
be allowed no place in the present discussion (Revision Revised, 82-3).
There were many other missing verses like 1 John 5:7 as discussed
above. Many readers of the RV were greatly disturbed by the excision of
the Trinitarian verse from the Bible. They felt that the doctrine of the
Trinity had been undermined. It is no wonder that the RV never caught
on, and not surprisingly since gone out of print. The ASV of 1901 was the
American edition of the RV. As with the RV, it also did not measure up to
the standard set by the KJV, and has been cast aside.
Revised Standard Version
The RSV (1952) is a revision of the ASV. It is an ecumenical Bible
translated by 32 scholars from various modernistic denominations
belonging to the National Council of Churches. Read Rome and the
RSV by Dr Hugh Farrell (Trinitarian Bible Society).
In the original edition of the RSV, John 7:53-8:11 on the woman
taken in adultery was taken out from the main text and placed in the
margin. The last 12 verses of Mark were excised entirely. Today we have
them back in the rightful places. Why? The RSV of course did not sit
very well with the fundamentalists. This was because the RSV made a
blatant attack against the virgin birth by rendering the Hebrew almah as
young woman (Isa 7:14). The Virgin Birth of Christ was meant to be a
miraculous sign to the house of David. If a young woman conceives, how
then can it be a sign? It is a God-given miracle only if a virgin conceives.
It is something supernatural and unique. The angel Gabriel quoting Isa
7:14 said that the prophecy of the Virgin Birth was fulfilled in Jesus who
came from the womb of Mary, a parthenos, a virgin. Was the angel
675
wrong when he told us that this is the meaning of the word almah in Isa
7:14? No, these so-called scholars of the RSV were in error, not the
angel. The angel surely knew Hebrew and Greek much better than they!
Matt 1:18 and 25 tell us in no uncertain terms that Mary was a virgin
from the time she conceived Jesus till the time she gave birth to Him.
It is no wonder that Rabbi Israel Bettan criticised the RSV. He said
of the RSV, The Revised Standard Version is not a faithful translation,
and in some places the revisers do violence to the original Hebrew. It is a
good book on the Bible, but it is not the Bible. When asked to compare
the King James Version with various other translations, the rabbi said that
of the English versions mentioned the King James Version was, in his
opinion, the most faithful to the original (The Brethren Missionary
Herald [Feb 1958]). The same is said by Dr Robert Alter (BA, Columbia
University, MA, PhD, Harvard University) who is professor of Hebrew at
the University of California, Berkeley, Modern English versions put
readers at a grotesque distance from the Hebrew Bible. To this day, the
Authorized Version of 1611 (the King James Bible) ... for all its
archaisms ... remains the closest we have ... of the original.
Bruce Metzger and company produced a revision of the RSV called
New RSV (1989). In support of the feminist movement, it has replaced
generic masculine nouns/pronouns with gender-inclusive terms. The
English Standard Version (ESV) published in 2001 is the latest revision
of the RSV. Although it corrects the RSV by rendering almah as virgin
in Isa 7:14, it is still deficient and untrustworthy because it is based on
the corrupt text of Westcott and Hort.
New English Bible
The NEB (1970) was a British work published by the Oxford and
Cambridge University Presses. The translation committee consisted of
those from UK Protestant Churches, viz the Church of England, Church
of Scotland, the Churches of Wales and Ireland, the Methodist, Baptist,
and Congregational churches, and the Society of Friends. Most of the
verses relegated to the margin in the WH text are also found only in the
margin of the NEB. There are thus missing verse numbers.
The NEB denies that Gen 3:15 (NEB: I will put enmity between
you and the woman, between your brood and hers. They shall strike at
your head, and you shall strike at their heel.) is the first gospel divinely
predictive of the virgin-born Messiah. Look at the NEBs corruption of
676
Gen 3:15: (1) thy seed and her seed is changed to your brood and
hers, and (2) The singular it (he) is changed to they; and his is
changed to their. Why? There can be no other reason but to deny that
Gen 3:15 is Messianic, divinely predictive of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It also attacked the prophecy of the virgin birth in Isa 7:14 following
the steps of the RSV. The NEB translates the word virgin as a young
woman is with child.
Todays English Version or Good News for Modern Man
Published by the American Bible Society, the NT of the TEV (1966)
was translated by Robert Bratcher, a modernist. The complete Bible came
out in 1976 and was renamed the Good News Bible (GNB).
The TEV/GNB attacks the blood of Christ. In 10 places the word
blood has been replaced by the word death (Acts 20:28, Rom 3:25,
5:9, Eph 1:7, 2:13, Col 1:14, 20, 1 Pet 1:19, Rev 1:5, 5:9). The Greek
haima means blood not death. If Jesus death was a bloodless one, it
would have been in vain, for without shedding of blood there is no
remission (Heb 9:22 cf 1 Pet 1:19).
The TEV/GNB employed the dynamic equivalence method of
translation. Dr Tan Wai Choon criticised the TEV: a translation of this
type is not really a translation at all but a paraphrase and commentary.
Very little of the TEV (i.e. the Good News Bible) is literal. Almost every
verse has been injected with the opinion of the translator as to what he
thinks the Greek text means, rather than what it says. ... Aside from its
basic failure to provide a literal translation, it is simply not accurate
(Whats Wrong with the Good News Bible? FEBC Press, nd, np). The
sound criticism above applies equally to the NIV which adopts the same
erroneous method of translating Scripture.
Living Bible
The Living Bible (1971) was translated by Kenneth Taylor. It was
not a translation of the original text, but a paraphrasing of the ASV.
According to Taylor, paraphrasing is to say something in different words
than the author used. It is a restatement of the authors thoughts, using
different words than he did. This is a most unacceptable method of
translating the Scriptures. It is deceptive to name it the Living Bible. It
is neither Bible nor Living. Such a paraphrase should be called The
Deadly Bible. I heard a prominent Bible professor at an ETS
677
(Evangelical Theological Society) meeting say that if he wanted to find

out what the Scripture does not mean, he would consult the Living Bible.
Consider the vulgar and inappropriate language used: Gen 13:17,
God tells Abraham to hike in all directions; 1 Sam 20:30, Saul reviling
Jonathan, You son of a bitch!; 2 Sam 13:11, Come to bed with me, my
darling; Isa 41:24, Anyone who chooses you needs to have his head
examined; Zech 8:9, Jehovah says, Get on with the job and finish it;
Matt 11:19, You complain that I hang around with the worst sort of
sinners; Mark 2:16, How can He stand it, to eat with such scum; John
9:34, You illegitimate bastard; John 11:49, You stupid idiots; Acts
4:36, Barny the Preacher.
The Living Bible has sold at least 40 million copies. In 1996 they
released the New Living Translation which is not much of an
improvement from the old one. See David Cloud, The New Living
Translation: A Weak Rendering of a Corrupt Text, O Timothy 13
(1996):1-11.
New American Standard Bible
The NASB (1971) is another revision of the ASV, prepared by 32
scholars who believed in the inspiration of the Bible, and published by
the Lockman Foundation. It is a literal translation of the Scriptures which
sought to be as close as possible to the actual wording and grammatical
structure of the original writers. Although it has adopted a correct
translational methodology, it failed in using a correct text.
Dr Frank Logsdon who was one of the NASB translators, and who
wrote the preface, later renounced the version he helped produce. He
renounced all attachment to the NASB because it was based on the
Westcott and Hort text. One may ask, Well, didnt he know it in the first
place? Logsdon testified, Well up to that time I thought the Westcott
and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott
and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believe in that Greek
text, the finest leaders that we have today. Youd be surprised; if I told
you you wouldnt believe it. They havent gone into it just as I hadnt
gone into it; [theyre] just taking it for granted. ... But I finally got to the
place where I said, ... Im in trouble, I cant refute these arguments; its
wrong; its terribly wrong; its frightfully wrong; and what am I going to
do about it? ... I must under God renounce every attachment to the New
678
American Standard (See From the NASV to the KJV, by S Franklin

Logsdon).
New International Version
The NIV (1978) is said to be the best-selling Bible version today.
Although the NIV may be written in modern-day English, it is an
untrustworthy version because it is based on the corrupt Westcott-Hort
text, and on a dynamic equivalence method of translation.
According to Jack Moorman, there are a total of 140,521 Greek
words in the traditional Greek New Testament. Now, out of these 140,521
words, 2,886 words are missing in the corrupted Greek text used by the
NIV. The NIV for instance omits the following 17 verses in their entirety:
Matt 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17;
5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Rom 16:24; 1 John 5:7. For other
examples please see Jack A Moorman, Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret
(California: Fundamental Evangelistic Association, nd).
There are numerous mistranslations of Gods Word in the NIV. Let
me highlight a couple of these mistranslations. The NIV clearly
mistranslated Ps 12:7 on the preservation of Gods words. The NIV reads,
And the words of the LORD are flawless like silver refined in a furnace
of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect
us from such people forever (Ps 12:6-7). Note the change from keep
them to keep us, and preserve them to protect us. They changed
the pronouns from third plural (i.e. them) to first plural (i.e. us). Is
this a correct or accurate translation?
In Hebrew, the first word is tishmerem. The -em suffix means
them not us. He will keep them (so KJV) is correct. The second
word is titzrennu. The -ennu suffix (with an energetic nun) is third
singular (i.e.him), not first plural (i.e. us). The energetic nun is
emphatic (i.e. every one of them, see KJV marginal note). So it should
be translated preserve them (i.e. every single word of His words) not
us (i.e. every single person of His people). By incorrectly and
inaccurately translating Ps 12:7, the NIV has effectively removed the
doctrine of Bible preservation from this text.
Another serious mistranslation of the NIV is found in Isa 49:12 on
Gods promise to the Chinese (see Timothy Tow, NIV Turns Land of
Sinim into Region of Aswan by a Twist of the Ball-Pen! The Burning
Bush 2 [1996]: 73-5; the article is published online at http://
679
www.febc.edu.sg/burningbush.htm). By translating Sinim as Aswan, the

NIV has erased the Chinese people from the Bible!
A Return to the Reformation

In an age when the pressure to be popular, to compromise and to
apostasise is so great, there is a real need to remember and to return to the
old time faith of the Protestant Reformation as expressed in the Biblical
dicta of Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone, and to the
Glory of God alone. In this postmodern and postconservative age, the
temptation is great to renounce the forever infallible and inerrant Word of
God as found in the 100% inspired and 100% preserved Hebrew, Aramaic
and Greek words of the Reformation Bible and the KJV, and to denounce
the Protestant Reformation of Luther and the Reformed Faith of Calvin as
a mistake in the history of the church.
But true Protestant sons and Bible-loving Christians should resist
the seduction of ecumenical unity at the expense of truth, and the
temptations of a neo-deistic worldview that denies the present perfection
of the Holy Scriptures.
Let us hold fast to the fundamental doctrine of the verbal plenary
inspiration and verbal plenary preservation of the Scriptures, and the
biblical practice of personal and ecclesiastical separation.
680
61
THE REFORMATION BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
No Bible, no Reformation! Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God (Rom 10:17). It was Gods Word that brought about
the 16th Century Protestant Reformation. The Reformation did not happen
by chance or by accident. It was a special event preplanned by God and it
finally happened in Gods perfect time. According to Church historian
Philip Schaff, The Reformation of the 16th Century is, next to the
Lord Jesus Christ came miraculously in the fullness of the time (Gal
4:4), so did the Reformation. In light of biblical precedents and special
The Reformation fire was lit by the Light of Gods Word. The Word
of God had to be put into the hands of the common folk. The Lord used
His servants like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, and finally the King
James translators to put the Bible into the hands of the people in the pew
so that they might know the truth, and the truth shall make them see and
set them free (John 8:32).
A Good Fruit of the Reformation

The Authorised or King James Version (AV/KJV) is built upon all
the Reformation versions (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva etc) of
the English Bible and is providentially the best of all the English
versions. It has stood the test of time and blessed many millions all over
the world in the last 400 years.
There are four reasons why the KJV is superior:
It Is Based on the Perfectly Preserved Text
All Christians should believe in the inspiration and preservation of
the Holy Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16, Ps 12:6-7). Jesus used the OT Scriptures
during His earthly ministry, and considered every word of it to be
inspired. In Matt 5:18, He said, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or
681
one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. This
surely implies that the Hebrew Scriptures have been preserved through
the centuries, to the extent that every bit of it has been left intact. If God
has so preserved the words of the OT Scriptures so that none of them is
lost, will He not also preserve the NT Scriptures? Based on Gods
promises and power, we can say with confidence that we have the very
Word of God today in the divinely preserved Hebrew and Greek texts (or
words) on which the KJV is based.
It Is Translated by Godly and Able Scholars
The King James Version is an excellent translation of the Holy
Scriptures. It is a good fruit. It is a good fruit because it comes from a
good tree (Matt 7:15-20). The KJV is a good translation because of good
translators; in terms of their intellect and learning, they were brilliant;
and in their faith and devotion towards God, they were vibrant. There
were a total of 54 scholars of the highest rank who translated the KJV.
They were not only men of great learning but also of great piety. They
were skilled in the biblical languages, and lived in a period when the
English language was at its glorious height. It was a most providentially
opportune time to translate the Scriptures into the English tongue. They
began their work in 1604 and completed it in 1611a total of seven
years. Without doubt, the KJV is a result of Gods special providence.
Consider Alexander McClures Evaluation of the KJ Translators
and Translation. He wrote, As to the capability of those men, we may
say again, that by the good Providence of God, their work was
undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that
singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of
Greek, and of the oriental tongues, ... had then be carried to a greater
extent in England than ever before or since. ... it is confidently expected
that the reader of these pages will yield to the conviction, that all the
colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of
boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally
qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking. Few indeed are
the living names worthy to be enrolled with those mighty men. It would
be impossible to convene out of any one Christian denomination, or out
of all, a body of translators, on whom the whole Christian community
would bestow such confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious
company, or who would prove themselves as deserving of such
confidence (Translators Revived, 63-4).
682
The Reformation Bible
It Is Accurately Translated Word for Word

The KJV employs a correct method of translation. The KJV uses the
verbal/formal over against the dynamic equivalence method of
translation. The verbal/formal equivalence method is the only acceptable
method for the translation of the Holy Scriptures. Why? Simply because
the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God!
God issued a very serious warning in Rev 22:18, For I testify unto
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man
shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of
the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of
life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this
book. In any attempt to translate the Scriptures, it is paramount that
there should be no addition to, subtraction from, and changing of Gods
Word. It must be translated word for word without any alteration of its
divine sense or intent.
The dynamic equivalence method is a subjective and interpretive
thought-for-thought method. Such a method may be applied to human
literature, but certainly not Holy Scripture. The Bibles divine origin and
its verbal inerrancy forbid it. Virgin must be translated virgin, and
not young woman (as in the RSV), and blood must be translated
blood, and not death (as in the TEV), and only begotten must be
translated only begotten, and not just one and only (as in the NIV).
It Is Faithful to Historic Protestant Theology
The KJV preserves all the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
Faith like the (1) Inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), (2) Preservation
of Scripture (Ps 12:6-7), (3) Virgin Birth of Christ (Isa 7:14), (4) Eternal
Generation of Christ (John 1:14, 18, 3:16, 18, 1 John 4:9), (5) the Holy
Trinity (1 John 5:7-8), (6) the deity and humanity of Christ (1 Tim 3:16),
and many others. The modernistic 20th century versions on the other hand
have unfaithfully manipulated these biblical texts to change or corrupt
these and other fundamental truths of the Christian faith.
One fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith that is undermined
or attacked by the modern versions is the doctrine of the Trinity. They
attack this important doctrine by scissoring out the clearest proof-text for
the doctrine of the Trinity which is 1 John 5:7, For there are three that
bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
683
these three are one. Some will argue that the absence of 1 John 5:7 does
not affect the doctrine of the Trinity because there are many other biblical
passages that teach it. The doctrine to them is thus not lost. While the
doctrine may not be lost, a very strong testimony for it has surely been.
Which other scriptural passage is as crystal clear as 1 John 5:7 in
expressing the unity of the three Persons of the Godhead? We lose a very
valuable proof-text by such flippant statements against the traditional
preserved text in favour of the critical cut-up text. This is not a small
matter as some would like to think. Paul warned, a little leaven
leaveneth the whole lump (Gal 5:9). By faith in Gods promise of
perfect preservation of not just His doctrines but also His words to the
last iota (Matt 5:18, 24:35), we believe 1 John 5:7 to be the inspired
words of God as given in the original.
A Return to the Reformation

In an age when the pressure to be popular, to compromise, and to
backslide is so great, there is a real need to remember and to return to the
old-time faith of the Protestant Reformation as expressed in the biblical
dicta of Grace alone, Faith alone, Christ alone, Scripture alone, and to the
Glory of God alone. In this postmodern and apostate age of uncertainty
and unbelief, the temptation is great to denounce the forever infallible
and inerrant Word of God as found in the 100% inspired and 100%
preserved Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words of the Reformation Bible
and the KJV, and to renounce the Protestant Reformation as a mistake in
the history of the church.
But true Protestant sons and Bible-loving Christians should resist
the seduction of ecumenical unity at the expense of truth, and the
temptations of a neo-deistic worldview that denies the present perfection
of the Holy Scriptures.
What of the many new and modern versions of the Bible today?
Albert Einstein once said, A man with one watch knows what time it is,
a man with two watches is never sure. Allow me to apply Einsteins
words to the Bible, A Christian with one Bible knows what the Truth
is, a Christian with two Bibles is never sure. Let us be sure of Gods
Truth by returning to the good old Bible, the one Bible of the great
Protestant Reformation, which we have in our hands today!
684
62
THE INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN
CHURCHES (ICCC) AND THE KING JAMES
BIBLE
Jeffrey Khoo
The Far Eastern Bible College believes in the verbal inspiration of
the Holy Scripturesevery word of Scripture is theopneustos, Godbreathed. All Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable . . . (2 Tim
3:16, KJV). We oppose the English Revised Version (RV) of Westcott
and Hort (and all like versions) which rendered 2 Tim 3:16 thus, Every
Scripture inspired of God is also profitable . . . . By placing the copula
is after the words, inspired of God, instead of before it as in the KJV,
the RV has made 2 Tim 3:16 to mean that certain parts of Scripture are
not inspired of God; only those portions that are inspired are profitable.
The KJV placed the copula is right after All Scripture. This leaves no
ambiguity whatsoever that all of Scripture, to its jot and tittle, is inspired
of God.
The Far Eastern Bible College rejects and opposes all modern
versions like the New International Version (NIV) that are a result of the
dynamic equivalence method of translation which licentiously add to,
subtract from, and manipulate the Scriptures, and those that cast doubt,
and/or omit verses based on corrupted readings of the Westcott and Hort
Text. We fully concur with the recently passed Bible Resolution of the
International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC) which met at its 50th
Anniversary in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, August 11-14, 1998. The
Bible Resolution reads,
WHEREAS despite the fact that there are over 150 so-called versions of
the Bible extant around the world today, there have been no new
discoveries of ancient texts to legitimize this plethora of modern versions
pouring off the presses and being sold as the latest Bible, and
WHEREAS a single exception to this has been the discovery of the nowfamous Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s in caves on the Judean mountain
685

range and contained in clay jars with the texts written on leather and
papyrus, and
WHEREAS fragments of all the books of the Hebrew Bible (except Esther)
confirm almost to the letter the accuracy of the Authorized King James
Version of the Old Testament, and
WHEREAS most of the modern versions are based upon the discredited
and perverted Westcott and Hort transcription and not on the Textus
Receptus (The Received Text) attested to by scholars for over 300 years,
from which the Authorized King James Version was translated by the
greatest theologians and textual critics of 17th Century England, who were
academic experts, indeed, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and
WHEREAS self-styled theologians who reject the inerrancy and inspiration
of the Scriptures have gone so far as to make a looseleaf notebook and tear
out those passages they do not accept, even organizing what they designate
as Jesus Seminars across the United States in which they declare that
Jesus never did and said the things recorded in the four Gospels; and that
the Gospel of John is the worst and is 90 percent fiction, and the obedient
secular press quotes them from coast-to-coast, and
WHEREAS this same KING JAMES VERSION has been used around the
world by an overwhelming majority of Christian Clergymen, Evangelists,
Bible Teachers, Missionaries and Youth Leaders to bring millions of people
to have a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ for more than three
centuries,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the International Council of
Christian Churches, assembled in the historic English Reformed Church in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, observing its 50th Anniversary, August 11-15,
1998, urge all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only the
Authorized KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in their teaching
ministry, and warn the followers of Christ against these innumerable new
bibles which are not translations at all, but revisions conforming to the
personal bias and views of those who have originated them and who are
profiting by commercial sales of such.
Is there any who calls himself a fundamentalist that will scoff at this
resolution? There are indeed fundamentalists who simply pay lipservice to the doctrine of biblical inspiration and preservation. In the
same breath they say yes and no to the Word of God they claim to
uphold: Yes to the KJV; No to the Textus Receptus. Dr Carl McIntire,
President of the ICCC did well to quote J Gresham Machen in the
January 17, 1957 issue of the Christian Beacon, The worst sin today is
to say that you agree with the Christian faith and believe in the Bible, but
686
The ICCC and the King James Bible
then make common cause with those who deny the basic facts of
Christianity. Never was it more obviously true that he that is not with
Christ is against Him. How can those who claim to believe in a verbally
inspired Bible support Westcott and Hortthe Bible and Christ denying
progenitors of our modern English versions? Westcott and Hort were
modernists and Mariolators, supporters of Freud and Darwin. They
applied the scissors to the traditional and preserved Greek Text of Gods
Word used and accepted by Gods people down through the ages. These
unregenerate duo hoodwinked the Church into accepting their mutilated
text, save Dean J W Burgon who in righteous indignation rose to debunk
Westcott and Hort in his masterly 600-page treatiseThe Revision
Revised.
Therefore, fundamentalists who continue to promote the WestcottHort Greek text which is now renamed Eclectic, and all the corrupt
English Bibles that flood the Christian market are not fighting against
Satan, but against Christ. I repeat the words of Machen, The worst sin
today is to say that you agree with the Christian Faith and believe in the
Bible [viz, the KJV], but make common cause with those [viz, Westcott
and Hort] who deny the basic facts of Christianity. Never was it more
obviously true that he that is not with Christ is against Him.
When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the spirit of the LORD
shall lift up a standard against him (Isa 59:17). For we can do nothing
against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor 13:8). Nevertheless the
foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth
them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ
depart from iniquity (2 Tim 2:19).
687
63
KICKING AGAINST THE PRICKS
The SCCC Contradicts the ICCC on VPP
Jeffrey Khoo
The Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC), which is the
national affiliate in Singapore of the International Council of Christian
Churches (ICCC), in its Reformation Rally of 2007 passed another
statement1 against the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Holy
Scriptures. This latest statement is clearly not in line with the ICCC
resolutions on the Bible made in Amsterdam 1998 and Jerusalem 2000
which the SCCC claims to reaffirm. In the Far Eastern Beacon of Easter
2008, the SCCC quoted the ICCC resolution that The King James
Version in English has been faithfully translated from these Godpreserved manuscriptsthe Masoretic Text preserving the Old Testament
and the Textus Receptus preserving the New Testament.2 This is what
VPP affirmsthe Hebrew/Aramaic words of the Masoretic Text, and the
Greek words of the Textus Receptus are the very inspired and preserved
words of God, and the Authorised or King James Version (AV/KJV) is a
faithful translation of those divinely inspired and preserved original
language words.
It is unfortunate that in the same paper, the SCCC misrepresents
VPP by putting the cart before the horse claiming that VPP is KJV3 when
VPP is the special providential preservation of the divinely inspired
words of the Holy Scriptures in the original languages (i.e., Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek words, and not English words or any other foreign
language words in Bible translations or versions). It must be underscored
that VPP recognises and requires the translation of true and faithful
versions of the Bible into other languages that are based upon the Godpreserved manuscripts or verbally and plenarily preserved texts, namely,
the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus from which
the KJV has been faithfully translated as affirmed by the ICCC.4
688
Kicking Against the Pricks
It ought to be made known that the Far Eastern Bible College

(FEBC) has been championing the ICCC resolution on the preservation
of Scripture passed at its 16th World Congress in Jerusalem in the year
2000. The ICCC statement #11 affirmed, Believing the OT has been
preserved in the Masoretic text and the NT in the Textus Receptus,
combined they gave us the complete Word of God. The King James
Version in English has been faithfully translated from these Godpreserved manuscripts.5
In the same issue of the Far Eastern Beacon (Easter 2008), the
SCCC also republished a 2005 letter by the Independent Board for
Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM) denouncing the doctrine and
promotion of VPP which clearly contradicts what the SCCC has
reaffirmed in the very same paper to be the ICCC position on Biblical
preservation, the KJV and its underlying original language texts. The
SCCC paper in the Far Eastern Beacon is inherently inconsistent and
contradictory. Wittingly or unwittingly, the SCCC anti-VPPists have
undermined the testimony of the ICCC and their own credibility by their
very own words and actions.
It is worth noting that Dr Lynn Gray Gordon, former General
Secretary of the IBPFM, in his commentary on the Westminster
Confession of Faith, states unequivocally that The Holy Scriptures have
been miraculously preserved down through the ages.6 This is nothing
less than the VPP of the Holy Scriptures by special or extraordinary,
supernatural or miraculous providence (by His singular care and
providence) as affirmed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter
1, Section 8). But the SCCC says that the continuing preservation of the
one Holy Scripture, the Bible, is merely general [i.e. not special, nonmiraculous, without direct, extraordinary divine intervention], but not
plenary [i.e. not full, complete, 100% to the jot and tittle].7 Is this
Biblically correct, theologically sensible, and logically tenable? Is this
the Reformed understanding of the Holy Scriptures and of Sola
Scriptura?
How we thank God for the Biblical doctrine of the verbal and
plenary preservation and the present infallibility and inerrancy of the
Holy Scriptures in the original languages (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35,
John 10:35, 2 Tim 3:16-17)! Insofar as the KJV is concerned, Dr Gordon
rightly disclaimed the KJV as an inspired version but nonetheless
689
upheld the KJV to be free from error in thought, fact and doctrine.8
VPP proponents say Amen to this.
The SCCC statement illustrates the fallacy of human logic and the
fallibility of the words of men. Mans writings are full of contradictions,
discrepancies and errors, but Gods words are perfect, infallible, and
inerrant, without any contradiction, discrepancy, or mistake to the last
letter and syllable. It proves all the more that the words of God are
forever infallible and inerrant, and always trustworthy, our sole and
supreme authority of faith and practice. The logic of faith is the key to a
consistent Bibliology. The logic of unbelief, on the other hand, produces
illogical thinking and ungodly deeds. Dr Gordon rightly observed, Sin is
an irrational thing. It makes a man act not only wickedly, but foolishly.9
It baffles the mind to see the SCCC holding a Reformation Rally only to
undermine the Reformation Bible, the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the
Greek Textus Receptus on which the KJV is based by denying and
denouncing VPP. Even the Rev K C Quekformer General Secretary of
the ICCChimself testified that he does not see main contradictions
between the clause 4.2.1 in the existing Constitution of our B-P Churches
and the VPP theory.10 Indeed, we see no contradiction whatsoever.
May the SCCC and its member churches retract all their statements
against VPP before they do further damage to the testimony and
credibility of the ICCC and the legacy of Dr Carl McIntire who believed
without question that Psalm 12:6, 7 proves the perfect preservation of the
words of God.11
It is indeed truthful that VPP is a blessed doctrine which preserves
godly paths to the glory of God alone. How true our Saviours words, It
is hard for thee to kick against the pricks (Acts 9:5)!
Notes
1
The SCCC had issued an earlier statement, Inspiration and Translations
of the Holy Scriptures, a resolution passed in its 49th AGM on October 29, 2005,
and published in the November-December 2005 issue of the Far Eastern Beacon.
See also Jeffrey Khoo, Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations, The Burning
Bush 13 (2007): 12-13.
2
Re-affirming SCCC Stand on the Word of God, IBPFM Resolution on
Bible Inspiration, Far Eastern Beacon 39:1 (Easter 2008): 4.
3
Ibid, 5.
4
Ibid, 4.
690
Kicking Against the Pricks

ICCC 16th World Congress Statements, Far Eastern Beacon (Christmas
2000): 13.
6
Lynn Gray Gordon, The Worlds Greatest Truths (Singapore: Far Eastern
Bible College Press, 1999), 25.
7
Re-affirming SCCC Stand on the Word of God, 5. Emphasis in the
original, but explanations in parenthesis are mine.
8
Gordon, 26.
9
Ibid, 174.
10
A Founding Leader of the B-P Movement in Singapore Replies to a
Query on the Church Constitution (http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/
querycc.htm accessed on June 19, 2008). The B-P Constitution 4.2.1 reads, We
believe in the divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the
original languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word
of God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life.
11
Hear his sermon entitled Help, LORD! (Psalm 12) preached on
January 11, 1992, accessible from www.sermonaudio.com.
5
691
64
THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE ICCC AND SCCC
ON BIBLE VERSIONS
Paul Ferguson
Introduction
In September 2008, the Far Eastern Beacon published by the
Singapore Council of Christian Churches (SCCC), which is the national
affiliate in Singapore of the International Council of Christian Churches
(ICCC) contained an article titled On VPP: Kicking against the Pricks
by Joshua Lim and Philip Tang (hereafter the Beacon Article). This
article was designed to be a rejoinder to an article in The Burning Bush of
July 2008 by Dr Jeffrey Khoo called, Kicking against the Pricks: The
SCCC Contradicts the ICCC on VPP. The authors state their conclusion
in paragraph one of the Beacon Article by confidently claiming, Upon
reading the ICCC and SCCC Statements, we found that the SCCC and
ICCC are consistent in their views regarding the preservation of the Holy
Scriptures.
The Beacon Article by Joshua Lim and Philip Tang is a strange kind
of defence and even at first glance is riddled with inaccuracies, inherent
inconsistencies and absurd definitions. Paradoxically, it even begins by
contradicting and undermining the original ICCC Resolution in 1998 by
describing it as ignorant and by doing so seems to imply that the ICCC
was an extreme King James Version Only (KJVO) organisation.1 This
crass and sweeping dismissal of the ICCCs General Assembly (which is
partly made up of the SCCCs delegates) hardly is suggestive that the
Beacon Article is a reliable advocate of the consistency of the SCCC with
the ICCC. It also surely delineates the desperation of the current
leadership of the SCCC when it is reduced to utilising authors2 to defend
it who have such contemptuous feelings towards its sister organisation.
The part of the ICCC Amsterdam Resolution that caught the ire of
the Beacon Article was the concluding resolution,
692
The Resolutions of the ICCC and SCCC on Bible Versions

Christian Churches, assembled in the historic English Reformed Church in
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, observing its 50th Anniversary, August 11-15,
1998, urge all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only the
Authorized KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in their teaching
ministry.
The authors of the Beacon Article are, however, right in implying

that the ICCC in 1998 and 2000 before the passing away of Dr Carl
McIntire was strongly KJVO. Indeed, the ICCC FounderDr
McIntirein a message delivered on November 1, 1992 (accessible from
sermonaudio.com), rejected any belief that we do not have the pure
Words of God for us in our Bible today,
Verse 6The Words of the Lord are pure Words. Not one of them is
mistaken. As silver tried in the furnace purified seven times; all the dregs
are out. Here is a marvelous affirmation and vindication that Gods Word is
perfect. The Words of the Lord are pure Words and thats the big issue
that you and I have in the Christian world today
Dr McIntire was also convinced that we have all of these Words available
to us and drew not just from Psalm 12 but also the Westminster
Confession of Faith,
Verse 7how I love this. Thou shalt keep them O Lord; that is keep His
Words. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. No
matter what happens, one generation comes and another passes away, God
is going to preserve these Words and they are going to carry their power
that He attends with them when they come. From one generation to another
the Words of God will be preserved throughout all the generations. Now I
am very happy that in the great Confessions of the Christian world, our
Confessionthe Westminster Confessionhas its Chapter One on the
Word of God. Now the Lord says, I am going to keep my Wordit is
like silver that has been tried. I am going to keep that to all generations, all
generations. That means that no matter what the conditions are, God is
going to have on this earth some churches and some pastors until the last
generation were taken away who will maintain this Word like we are doing
here.
Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) applauds this historic stance of

ICCC and seek to uphold this as Dr Jeffrey Khoo explains, It ought to be
made known that the Far Eastern Bible College (FEBC) has been
championing the ICCC resolution on the preservation of Scripture passed
at its 16th World Congress in Jerusalem in the year 2000.3
693
It is regrettable that in recent years the SCCC has departed from

both the letter and spirit of these ICCC resolutions. The 1998 ICCC
resolution is very clear on its unequivocal rejection of any other English
Bible version and the need to militantly defend the KJV when the ICCC
stated they,
urge all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only the Authorized
KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in their teaching ministry,
and warn the followers of Christ against these innumerable new bibles
which are not translations at all, but revisions conforming to the personal
bias and views of those who have originated them and who are profiting by
commercial sales of such.
A good example of this departure by the SCCC was their utilising

guest speakers at recent SCCC rallies in Singapore such as Dr Edward
Panosian of Bob Jones University (BJU) in 2005 and Rev Tan Eng Boo
in 2008 who both wholly reject and oppose the historic ICCC position.
Panosian is a Church History Professor at BJU which openly endorses the
Alexandrian Texts as, a whole, superior to the text based upon
manuscripts of the Middle Ages. 4 Indeed, BJU was one of the
educational institutions to assist the Lockman Foundations publication of
the New American Standard Version (NASV) in 1971. In a BJU booklet
rejecting the KJVO position, Panosian sought to undermine the KJV by
arguing that,
Neither the Received Text nor the Westcott and Hort Text is either right or
wrong, liberal or conservative. The latter is older and nearer to the original,
but both are the Word of the living God.5
Panosians colleague at BJU, Dr Samuel Schnaiter is even more

candid and concedes in his 1980 PhD dissertation titled, The Relevancy
of Textual Criticism to the Modern English Version Controversy for
Fundamentalists, that,
With regard to preservation, however, no Scripture explicitly declares
anything of this sort of guidance to apply to the manuscript copyists as far
as the precise wording of the text is concerned. Some have deduced such
supernatural guidance from Scripture. They note passages that promise
Gods Word shall never perish or be lost. However, such promises of
preservation in view of the wording variations must apply only to the
message of Gods Word, not its precise wording.6
The same Dr Schnaiter and his other BJU colleague, Ron

Tagliapietra, had even the audacity to accuse our Lord of deception in
694
citing as the Words of God an imperfect source when they wrote, It is

obvious that Jesus did not consider the lack of the autographs an
important matter, and He called the extant copies inspired in spite of any
typos in them. 7
The 2008 SCCC speaker, Rev Tan Eng Boo of Grace BiblePresbyterian Church, is just as forthright and has publicly stated,
Why should the Church be reading only the KJV when the masses of people
today do not understand it? Depriving the lost to understand the Scripture is
a sin. It is hindering the unsaved to know the truth. In Grace Church, we
must never go to the extreme as these people are doing today. Our official
Bible is the KJV, but we will also use the New King James Version (NKJV),
New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the English Standard Version
(ESV).8
The Far Eastern Beacon in its September 2008 edition carries an

advertisement for its Reformation Rally 2008 which features another
non-KJV speaker, Dr Robert Vannoy from Biblical Theological Seminary
in USA, who uses all kinds of modern translations in his writings.9
In light of these trends, it is surely pertinent to question the sincerity
of the current leadership of the SCCCs commitment to the ICCC
resolution to, urge all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only
the Authorized KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in their
teaching ministry, and in warning the followers of Christ against these
innumerable new bibles which are not translations at all. It seems
wholly inconsistent for SCCC to repeatedly pass resolutions against the
Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) position whilst sponsoring speakers
who hold contradictory and openly hostile positions to the ICCC and
thereby neglecting their own clear commitments in warning the
advocates of the modern versions. Indeed, the Rev Tan Eng Boo has even
called the ICCC and SCCC position of only using the KJV a sin and
they feel they can fellowship and use him as their speaker!
ICCC 1998 Resolution

The 1998 ICCC resolution begins in recital one by expressly ruling
out any so-called Majority Text position of men like Zane Hodges and
that of Rev Colin Wong10 of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church (a leading
member of SCCC) by expressly stating, there have been no new
discoveries of ancient texts to legitimize this plethora of modern
versions pouring off the presses and being sold as the latest Bible.
695
The 1998 ICCC resolution also includes an express faith-based

presuppositional commitment to VPP not based upon textual criticism but
on providential blessing in its recitals when it rejects all other modern
versions because it argues, this same KING JAMES VERSION has been
used around the world by an overwhelming majority of Christian
Clergymen, Evangelists, Bible Teachers, Missionaries and Youth Leaders
to bring millions of people to have a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus
Christ for more than three centuries.
The 1998 ICCC resolution then gives a workable definition of the
Textus Receptus (Received Text) that makes it clear that it is an
identifiable text and not some uncertain group of words scattered
throughout manuscripts or in the Byzantine Family manuscripts. By their
choice of words, the ICCC have deliberately restricted the Textus
Receptus (Received Text) to the printed texts underlying the KJV when
they state, WHEREAS most of the modern versions are based upon the
discredited and perverted Westcott and Hort transcription and not on the
Textus Receptus (The Received Text) attested to by scholars for over 300
years, from which the Authorized King James Version was translated by
the greatest theologians and textual critics of 17th Century England.
This ICCC position is not surprising and is identical to groups such
as the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) who also state, The Greek
Received Text is the name given to a group of printed texts, the first of
which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516.11
ICCC 2000 Statement

The ICCC builds upon the 1998 resolution by strengthening their
KJVO position in a 2000 Statement in Jerusalem. They initially begin by
applying the words of inspiration to preservation when they say,
Believing that God not only inspired the Bible without errors in fact,
doctrine and judgment but preserved the Scriptures in all ages for all
eternity as the Westminster Confession of Faith standard saysthe O.T. in
Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God and by
His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are therefore kept
authentical. ... they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every
nation unto which they come,
It should be noted that the ICCC clearly argue that preservation is

the exclusive work of God Himself in all ages for all eternity so we can
only conclude that this work was perfect. The concept of Gods
696
imperfect preservation is an oxymoron. There are no scriptural

passages that support a view that God said that He wanted us to have 9398% of His Word. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) concurs
and states the Bible is kept pure in all ages. Any other conclusion as to
the perfection of this preservation would explicitly accuse God of being
imperfect in His actions and works. Interestingly, the ICCC specifically
link the inspiring of the Bible without errors in fact, doctrine, and
judgment with that of preservation in one sentence. No attempt is made
by the ICCC (or indeed the WCF) to distinguish between the Bibles
perfect inspiration and perfect preservation, which we would expect if
this was their belief. It is also interesting that the ICCC here accepts that
Bible translations have flowed directly from this perfect work of
preservation by God. Nothing in these words of the ICCC could be
reasonably construed to imply that these Words are still hidden in
manuscripts or lost rather than in our Reformation Bibles.
The WCF position is not surprising in light of history as initially, all
of the various Protestant Confessional statements (such as the
Westminster, the Philadelphia etc.) contain statements about the
preservation of Scripture that were written in response to text-critical
problems and challenges of the Counter-Reformation. As one
commentator put it, these creeds descriptively appealed to the consensus
of history for determining the boundaries of the texts of Scripture. In the
5th century, Satan in order to destroy the Church had to lead the common
man to turn to the Church instead of the Bible for authority. Throughout
the next ten centuries of Satans Millennium the church and society
plunged into the Dark Ages because the people were kept from the
objective revelation of God. Only a remnant survived thanks to the
Received Text in groups such as the Waldensians.
The WCF which the ICCC utilises as its basis for arguing
concerning preservation has also a number of other things to say about
the subject. In section I (5) of Holy Scripture the Confession states,
whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet
697

witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
In effect, the WCF states that the entire perfection of the Words of
Scripture for us today is to be primarily evidenced by the internal
evidence of Scripture. This is problematic for anti-VPP advocates such as
the current SCCC leadership as they do not believe the Scriptures in our
hands is perfect and cannot even identify what imperfections it actually
has. The final expression in this section of the WCF also poses a
tremendous problem for the SCCC as the WCF states another evidence of
Scripture perfection is, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of
the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. If
the SCCC position is true and we do not have all of the Words of God
perfectly preserved in the underlying texts of the KJV, then they are in
effect arguing that the Holy Spirit is bearing witness in our hearts with a
perfect Word that is different from the imperfectly preserved Bible we
have in our hands. This position is dangerously close to the heretical
views of the Neo-Orthodox writers such as Karl Barth that the Bible is
the word of God but not the words of God so it is only when one
reads the text that it existentially, becomes the word of God to him.
One of the Beacon Article authors, Philip Tang, implicitly admits his
Barthian position when he previously wrote,
The fact that Biblical manuscripts are the best preserved of all ancient
manuscripts does not make the Bible infallible and inerrant; it is infallible
and inerrant because God is the author. It is not the physical letters of the
Word that are important but the meaning they convey, the precepts, the
sense of it that matters.
.it is clear that Gods Word shall stand forever, fully preserved (Pro
22:12) and be written in the hearts of the believers.12
The SCCC and Philip Tangs position by definition now requires a

charismatic post-canonical work of re-inspiration in the heart when we
receive an inward message that we cannot test by the written Word13
even though the WCF states that all experiences must be tested by the
Bible as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal
unto them. We simply ask, how can the Holy Scriptures be a certain and
infallible rule if they are based on a fallible text? We cannot appeal to the
pure Word of God preserved in heaven as it is something that we
698
cannot use. This dangerous and new thought preservation position of

the SCCC and its supporters in Singapore such as Zion, Grace and Life
Bible-Presbyterian Churches, however, is completely inconsistent with
the WCF which rejects any such new revelations of the Spirit by
stating,
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own
glory, mans salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in
Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from
Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new
revelations of the Spirit.
The ICCC also interestingly in their resolution reject the erroneous

interpretation of the Board of Elders of Life Bible-Presbyterian Church
(LBPC), a leading member of SCCC, in respect of Matthew 24:35. LBPC
state that,
This verse must be interpreted in the context of the end-time prophecies
that Jesus gave in vv.4-34. It indicates the certainty and reliability of all
these prophecies. The words of Jesus will continue to be certain, valid and
trustworthy even after the universe ceases to exist.14
The Elders of LBPC believe only the end-time prophecies, all

these prophecies or the words [of prophecy] of Jesus are certain,
valid and trustworthy. They add further in the same statement that this
verse is one of a number in which, what can be understood from these
verses is that the Word of God will be providentially preserved rather
than exactly preserved. One is tempted to ask LBPC how they are sure
that these are the actual words of Jesus and that they will continue to
be certain, valid and trustworthy if they come from what they accept is
an imperfect, inexact and incomplete source? What LBPC are really
saying is that, heaven and earth shall pass away, but most of the words
or the general sense of what God said wont pass away. In essence, God
did not do what He promised He would do. If LBPC believe we do not
have an absolutely and entirely infallible text then on what authority do
they base their beliefs? Are they appealing, as do the other religions and
cults, to a man or a system as our final authority? However, the
Reformation was predicated upon the presupposition that we are to
appeal to the Bible as our final authority. How does LBPC know for
certain that John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8-9 are not just the error or
corruption of some first century scribe? By their preservation belief
system this is a possibility that cannot be discounted as, according to
699
them, it is heretical, false and impractical to demand an absolutely

and entirely infallible and inerrant text!
The ICCC, by contrast, is unambiguous in its 1998 resolution in
linking VPP with Matthew 24:35 when they state:
Believing God safeguarded the Bible in times past and will continue to do
so in the future and all eternity. He preserved one Holy Scripture, the Bible.
Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away;
Matthew 24:35.
Baptist author, Kent Brandenburg, explains the fallacy of LBPCs

position,
The eschatological context doesnt affect the teaching on preservationit
enhances it. The Lord Jesus Christ assures His disciples that His promises
not only shall certainly be fulfilled but also shall remain available for the
comfort of His people during that troubled period which shall precede His
second coming. His words were preserved because they were written
down. Heaven and earth are physical entities that will pass away, that is,
disappear. They can be less counted upon in their preservation than Jesus
Words. Heaven and earth will disappear in the end times, so Jesus Words
are time sensitive. Theyll be around surely when heaven and earth will not.
Why not just take the plain meaning of the text?15
The fallacy of the LBPC view is also exposed by David Sorenson,

The same critics object that these are His spoken words and not His written
Word. This implied is that though His spoken words may last forever, His
written Word will not. However, what these selfsame critics seem to miss is
that the Holy Spirit inspired the very words of Jesus which He saw fit to
record as Scripture.16
This typically theologically muddled statement by LBPC exemplifies the

confusion at the heart of the SCCC now, as members such as LBPC
openly contradict the ICCC resolutions on Matthew 24:35 and come up
with nebulous and dangerous statements that cannot be tested or proven
such as, the Word of God will be providentially preserved rather than
exactly preserved. Imagine the outcry against FEBC if they taught that
our salvation is not exactly preserved. What they really mean is that the
message or central concepts have been preserved, independent from
the specific words of Gods revelation. However, there are no such things
as wordless concepts and repeatedly we are warned against adding to or
taking away from the Words (not just concepts or ideas) of the Bible (e.g.
Deut 4:2; Prov 30:5-6; Rev 22:18-19).
700
The very idea that God in a laissez-faire manner did something

imperfectly either through lack of attention, desire, or power is akin to
blasphemy. What passage do they base this on? What verses guide them
to take this view? None! The SCCC and LBPC clearly have an unbiblical
limited belief in divine providence. They claim to accept that God keeps
them secure despite their sins, that God inspired Scripture despite 40-45
authors over 1,500 years, and that our Biblical Canon has been perfected
providentially. Somehow the Holy Spirit could perform a miracle of
providence in guiding us exactly to 66 books, but He could not do it with
Words despite the fact that Scripture promises to preserve words, but
does not say books.
If we are going to start eroding and working down the Words, then
why not start working on the Books too? Why 66 of them? They are
completely inconsistent in their application of human reasoning. They
have no scriptural basis for canonicity as there is no verse in the Bible
that says we would have 66 books. Certainly Paul wrote other books not
in the Canon. And yet, they are not heretical for believing in the
canonicity of 66 books for no other reason than because they are the selfappointed arbiters of truth and have made this decision. However, VPP
advocates are labelled as cultists and heretics for using the same
reasoning for the Words. They are truly selective in their belief in the
power of providence! If the Received Text is not the preserved and
inspired Words of God, then LBPC need to tell us where is the text that
contains the Words that Jesus said would never pass away?
The SCCC and LBPC position is clearly that there is now no book
on earth that is the final and absolute authority on what constitutes truth
and what constitutes error. Indeed, Philip Tang has candidly confessed in
another article that he totally rejects the ICCC position of preservation,
There is not a single verse in the Bible that says that all the physical letters
of the autographa would be preserved (much less preserved in the KJV
underlying texts) but rather speaks about the enduring quality of Gods
Word. His Word is completely pure, perfect and is absolutely truthful (Psa
12:6; Psa 18:30, 19:7; Num 23:19). Because the Word expresses Gods will
and possesses Gods authority, it has eternal validity (Psa. 119:89 ; Is. 40:8;
Pro 22:12, Mar 13:31).
The fact that Biblical manuscripts are the best preserved of all ancient
manuscripts does not make the Bible infallible and inerrant; it is infallible
and inerrant because God is the author. The historical data only affirms the
701

truth of Gods Word that it stands forever and that His eyes [omniscience]
preserve it.
it is clear that Gods Word shall stand forever, fully preserved (Pro
22:12) and be written in the hearts of the believers. What is preserved is not
the physical letters that make up the autographa but the knowledge [of
God] as it is stated in Proverbs 22:12.17
Philip Tang does not explain to us how he determines what is

biblical when Gods words are hidden from him here on earth. Perhaps he
has some sort of personal inspiration. Ironically, Tang in the same article
contradicts himself and accepts VPP in the Old Testament Scriptures for
the Masoretic apographs during the ministry of Christ,
The Pharisees knew the Scriptures very well, and the exact number of
words and letters of a particular book of Scripture. They often focused on
the minor, and often, unimportant matters of the law. They could not
identify Jesus as the Messiah because they sought salvation in their
knowledge of the Scriptures. They had the complete word of God, not one
word or letter was missing. Every physical word was accounted for.18
Surely, if it is legitimate and non-heretical for Philip Tang to accept VPP

of the apographs 2,000 years ago, it is not an unreasonable belief to
contend for this today. The manuscripts available to our Lord were
likewise copies of copies, yet He never attempted to correct them, or
discuss variant readings, or speak of more accurate renditions (Matt 4:410, 19:3-5, 21:16, 42; Luke 4:16-17; John 5:39, 10:35 etc.). Christ did,
however, correct the Pharisaical interpretations, but not the Scriptures. In
doing so Christ declared that the Old Testament text in common use
among the Jews during His earthly ministry was an absolutely
trustworthy reproduction of the original text. Indeed, if the Bible were
inspired only in the original autographs, no one in the entire history of the
world has ever had an inspired Bible. The original autographs of Job and
the books of Moses had disappeared more than a thousand years before
the first book of the New Testament was written, so no one has ever
owned a complete Bible made up of inspired autographs. God certainly
went to a lot of trouble for nothing. It is clear that Philip Tang now
accepts that copies of copies can indeed be considered the infallible,
inspired, inerrant preserved Words of God. Tang correctly uses the
scriptural promises to come to this presupposition by faith and then
paradoxically rejects it today.
702
This confusion should not surprise us as the SCCC itself at its

Reformation Rally in 2007 openly contradicted the ICCC positions by
rejecting that God had perfectly preserved all of His Words. They then
retreated from the clarity of the ICCC position to a new and unbiblical
formula of continuing general, but not plenary, preservation when they
stated,
The SCCC hereby re-affirm our stand on the Word of God as above and call
upon all our members and all our fellow Bible-believing brethren all over
the world to re-affirm our unqualified faith in the inerrancy and infallibility
of the Word of God in the original languages, and in the continuing
general, but not plenary, preservation of the one Holy Scripture, the
Bible.19
The SCCC deliberately did not elaborate on the conclusions of this

new doctrine they are espousing for fear of letting the cat out of the bag.
The truth is that the use of such double-speak in phrases like continuing,
general, but not plenary preservation is to hide the fact that they do not
believe we have all the Words of God preserved and available for us
today in a settled text. If God is providentially behind the multitude of
conflicting and contradictory opinions about these so-called textual
variants, then it would be fair to conclude that this God is very confused
about what He said or did not say, and what He meant when He said it.
What SCCC truly mean is that if you have a generally but not fully
preserved Bible, you will be able to get a drift of most of the message that
God was originally trying to convey. However, the ICCC and the WCF, as
we have seen above, are very clear that we do have all these Words
preserved for us. Interestingly, the TBS, using the same logic of faith,
also reject this nebulous and inconsistent view of the SCCC when they
rejected the concept of a Majority Text,
The Trinitarian Bible Society maintains that the providentially preserved
true and authentic text is to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew and the
Greek Received Texts. In so doing, it follows the historic, orthodox
Protestant position of acknowledging as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and
Greek texts consistently accessible to and preserved among the people of
God in all ages.
Furthermore, as no detailed collation of all surviving manuscripts has taken
place, the exact majority text cannot yet be determined; and even if one day
that became possible, the resultant text could only be provisional and
tentative, because the discovery of further manuscripts might change
minority readings to majority readings, or vice versa. The doctrine of
703

providential preservation, however, teaches that the Church isand always
has beenin possession of the true text of Scripture.20
However, it is by faith that the child of God knows that he already

has the Word of God at his disposal. Indeed, if we only used the majority
concept as our standard, we would remain in constant uncertain state of
flux. As Dr Floyd Nolen Jones puts it,
But we need not be concerned, for God has not left us depending upon the
spade of the archaeologist to determine the true text. Neither are we
awaiting his discovering a new papyri hiding in a jar somewhere. If we did
so, our faith would always be wavering and we could never be confident
that a dealer would not soon appear with something new from somewhere
else. We would be wondering if the damming of the Nile River had
destroyed some Greek text which would show us a new wonderful truth. We
already possess and have had all along the actual TRUTH of Scripture! We
have, by faith in Gods promises to preserve His Word, an assumed
premise, a priori, of Gods providential preservation of the text. Someone
may say prove it, but this fails to comprehend the nature of a priori
premise. As Letis has reminded us: One does not prove a first premise. A
premise by definition is something one assumes, not something he
proves. Our confidence is in Gods never failing promises and in the
text which has been continuously in public usage by the Church. This is
why the TR is the true text, not merely because of its great statistical
superiority or probability.21
The ICCC 2000 statement then turns to discussing where the words
of God have been fully preserved. They state,
Believing the O.T. has been preserved in the Masoretic text and the N.T. in
the Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the complete Word of God. The
King James Version in English has been faithfully translated from these
God-preserved manuscripts.
So, it is clear that the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus are stated
by the ICCC to give us the complete Word of God. Lest those, like the
Beacon Article authors, try and play with words, helpfully, the ICCC also
define the word complete when they link it directly to the originals in
the first paragraph as, Believing the Holy Scriptures of the originals to
be fully inspired with its words and genders and being complete as Gods
revelation to man without error. The only argument left for the new
SCCC position is to argue that the definition of Textus Receptus can be
stretched to mean the extant manuscripts of the Majority Text or
Byzantine Family. However, in the 1998 ICCC resolution (as we have
704
seen above) clearly defines the Textus Receptus as the printed editions of
the Textus Receptus in similar vein to the TBS. This is also helpfully
backed up by the clear contradistinction in the ICCC 2000 statement
between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus when they stated,
God preserved the Textus Receptus in the majority text with 95%. This
definition of Textus Receptus is also confirmed by the writings of a
leading SCCC supporter, Rev Isaac Ong of Calvary Jurong BiblePresbyterian Church, who accepts it can only refer to the printed text as,
The phrase textus receptus is derived from an introductory passage to
the second edition of Greek New Testament published by the Elzevir
brothers in 1633.22
The ICCC 2000 statement concludes by condemning the Westcott
and Hort texts because they remove or cast doubt on so many passages
and words. This is a very accurate analysis of the inevitable conclusion
of the rejection of the VPP position. Indeed, LBPC has candidly admitted
they are also uncertain as to the Words of God today and state, the Word
of God will be providentially preserved rather than exactly preserved. In
a definitive statement on the subject they made the following admissions,
Since preservation of the Scriptures is through providence, copyists errors
may exist in the underlying texts of the KJV but they are so few and
insignificant that they do not affect the integrity of the Bible, nor do they
distort the message of God to man.
The word closest in our Doctrinal Positional Statement is an adjective
meaning nearest. It is used to make relative comparison, i.e. among the
body of manuscripts, there are those that are close, others that are closer,
and the texts underlying the KJV are the closest (compared to the rest) to
the original autographs.
The Reformers faith in the Bible remained firm because they reasoned that
the sovereign God who permitted these few insignificant copyists errors to
enter in MUST HAVE ensured that the integrity of the Bible remains intact
and completely reliable for mans use Since the position of the
Reformers has been accepted to be orthodox and correct even up to this day
by the Reformed Community in general, those who hold the same position
they held should not be considered to be less orthodox and biblical than
them, much less be considered as attacking the Word of God.23
Another leading anti-VPP spokesman, Rev Yap Beng Shin of Olivet

Bible-Presbyterian Church, also accepts we do not have all the Words of
God available to us and can only hope one day to have them,
705

By the use of external evidence (comparing various manuscripts and
ancient translations) and internal evidence (e.g. comparing Kings and
Chronicles) we might finally arrive at the Perfect text, but without the
inspired Autograph to compare with we cannot make such a claim. We can
at best make a speculative statement, but we have no right to condemn
other texts that differ, because the content of the Autograph is in the
multitude of manuscripts, not one.24
Using a similar line of reasoning, Fred Moritz, the Executive

Director of Baptist World Missions in a BJU Publication also admits,
the debate whether to use the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text, or the
Critical Text should not be a source of bitter contention. Neither should it
be a test of fellowship among brethren. This is not to demean the textual
variants. The issue is worthy of continual study, and scholars should
pursue the accurate wording of the original writings in those areas where
uncertainty exists.25 Former Central Baptist Seminary professor, Edward
Glenny concurs,
In our defense and propagation of the faith the key issue is not whether
today we know the precise form of the words recorded in the autographa.
To make that our focus moves us away from God to concentrate on the
process The key issue is that God has spoken in the autographa and He
has spoken with authority and without error and we are responsible to
respond to Him.26
However, the fallacy at the heart of the progressive revelation

argument of LBPC and the Rev Yap Beng Shin is that God does not
promise to simply preserve doctrines or His message in any part of
Scripture but the Words (of course, all doctrines are based upon the
Words). Their new version is, The concepts of the Lord are perfect,
converting the soul! They need to realise that God is not seeking to
leave us blindly groping in the dark awaiting a progressive revelation,
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches
of the saints (1 Cor 14:33). Is God the Author of doubt? With respect to
their ongoing search to recover the original text it has been well noted
that no one will know when this goal has been achieved as there are no
originals or autographs to compare our reconstructed texts.
If God fails to preserve His Words for us today then doctrine is
affected as God would have failed to keep His promise. Implied in the
doctrine of preservation is the identification of those preserved Words. It
is useless to SCCC members to have the Bible everywhere and no where!
706
If every Word is important according to Christ in Matthew 4:4, does it not

make sense that God would preserve all of His Words so that we might be
nourished and strengthened? What father would feed his children with
poisoned food or hide the best food from his children? Logically, we have
only two choices: either we are unable to live the life of faith, or else God
has providentially preserved the only source of authority that He ever
gave to us. If we accept that the life of faith is possible, the perfect
preservation of Scripture is not merely a historical fact or a theological
speculation, but truly an essential doctrine.
Despite the claims of the SCCC that churches are being divided and
destroyed by the VPP issue, this does not match the facts. History shows
that what has destroyed churches is a rejection of the Words of God.
Church members who believe in the inspiration and preservation of the
Words of God do not destroy a work, they build it! Faith in the inerrant
and preserved Words of God is a mark of orthodoxy and believers need to
simply trust God as we are exhorted to, Cast not away therefore your
confidence, which hath great recompense of reward (Heb 10:35).
Interestingly, Satans strategy from the beginning was to attack Gods
Words by using one of his most potent weaponsdoubt. Gods Word
says that His revelation to man was preserved for all time, to each and
every generation, and in every single Word. You cannot read the Bible
objectively without recognising the immense importance the Lord has
placed on His Words. Severe punishments are promised to punish anyone
who adds to His Words including a promise to remove those who would
take away from His Words, from the Book of Life! The Lord Jesus Christ
placed the Scripture as our highest authority for faith and life. The
Scriptures were the basis of Christs theological arguments. He used the
very Words, or even parts of words, to make His points.
Problems for the SCCC

The SCCC are now clearly in total confusion on the issue of the
ICCC resolutions and VPP. They appear to be stating what they hope the
ICCC resolutions had said, rather than what they actually do say. The
SCCC even had the chutzpah to claim in a logic-deficient statement on 27
October 2007 to believe,
that the constitutional position of the SCCC and the International Council
of Christian Churches (ICCC) remains as our unalterable position, namely,
that Among other equally biblical truths, we believe and maintain the
707

plenary Divine inspiration of the Scriptures in the original languages, their
consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word, of God, the
supreme and final authority in faith and life (ICCC Constitution, Article 2a
and SCCC Constitution, Article 4.1).27
The obvious questions to be posed to the SCCC are that if they

reject the VPP of all of the Words of God in the Textus Receptus as the
complete perfect Word of God then: How can they prove the Bible is
inspired? How can they prove it was once infallible in the autographs?
How can they use an imperfect source as the supreme and final authority
in faith and life? In reality, their statement is utterly meaningless.
The SCCC are trying to convince us that they believe that the Bible
is inerrant and inspired, and yet the inerrant Bible disappeared shortly
after it was inspired. One would suppose the SCCC would be raising
funds to begin this immediate work of reconstructing the Bible from the
Textus Receptus or the KJV they are confident has identifiable mistakes
and in need of research to correct. The reality here is that the SCCC, the
supposed bastion of Bible truth, are now boldly admitting that they do not
believe God preserves His Words today, that their Bible has mistakes and
that they do not know or care to correct these mistakes. Also, as faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10:17), how
can the members of the SCCC earnestly contend for the faith which was
once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) if we do not have all of that
faith? In light of 2 Peter 3:2 which says, That ye may be mindful of the
words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the
commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour are we
excused of this as we do not have all these Words? If a member of the
SCCC does not have access to all the Words of God today, will God
hold him accountable on the day of judgment for rejecting and not
receiving them (John 12:48) and not keeping His commandments (Luke
16:10; Rev 22:14)?
The SCCC state that they believe the KJV to have been faithfully
translated from the God-preserved manuscripts of the Hebrew-language
traditional Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek language
accepted Textus Receptus for the New Testament. The challenge for the
SCCC is then to explain why we have mistakes and errors in the KJVs
underlying text if it has been faithfully translated from the manuscripts
that God preserved. Are they going to use the same schizophrenic logic of
LBPC who in one sentence say of the KJVs underlying text that We do
708
not ascribe perfection to it, yet paradoxically maintain that The KJV is
a good, faithful and accurate translation and we have no doubt that we
have the very Word of God, and it is fully reliable?28 If God has not
preserved His Word perfectly, we must assume that we are preaching and
teaching from a book that is not completely reliable as the original
autographs are no longer accessible and there is wide and intense
disagreement as to what the originals may or may not have said. What
is the LBPC definition of fully reliable? As they say we equate the
Word of God with reliability; do we now equate imperfection with
reliability and the Word of God? If they had a bus schedule and were told
that it is off in hundreds of places, would they call that reliable? LBPC by
adopting this logic of unbelief has substituted a statement of faith for
what is in reality a statement of unbelief!
Incredibly, LBPC have argued that they reject the perfection of the
underlying KJV text yet when questioned as to demonstrate these
mistakes/errors, that they are so confident with the SCCC that are there,
piously argue, there is no need for us to play textual critic to decide
which edition is the purest of all, or seek to improve the intangible
Greek and Hebrew texts which underlie the KJV.29 In one breath LBPC
and their counterparts in the SCCC hypocritically use their elected
position to play the textual critic in destroying the textual foundation of
the KJV and VPP, yet they do not have the courage to prove their
allegations and even worse they have no scriptural foundation for making
such outlandish claims! It is also sad to note that they do not feel the
integrity of the text of Scripture as an issue worthy of any real investment
in time. Another puerile argument LBPC use is that if VPP is correct,
then we did not have the pure Word of God until 1611. What they do not
add is that they do not know where it was before 1611, or more
importantly, where it is now!
By these tactics, LBPC have altered the crucial doctrine of
preservation to that of restorationand most textual critics do not
believe that such restoration is even any longer possible (as LBPC
implicitly admits in refusing to play the textual critic). Textual critics
agree such as Rendel Harris in 1908 who declared that the New
Testament text was, More than ever, and perhaps finally, unsettled.30 In
1910, Conybeare states that the ultimate (New Testament) text, if there
ever was one that deserves to be so called, is forever irrecoverable.31 In
1941 Kirsopp Lake, after a lifetime spent in the study of the New
709
Testament text, argues, In spite of the claims of Westcott and Hort and
of von Soden, we do not know the original form of the Gospels, and it is
quite likely that we never shall.32
LBPC are unfairly giving the impression that they know where all
these Words of God are, but refuse to tell us where to find them.
Logically, even the simplest mind knows that to categorically say there is
something missing or added to the underlying text of the KJV must mean
the person(s) making such a claim has an objective standard of truth, i.e.
a perfect text to make such a bold accusation. However, on their website
LBPC boast in their Doctrinal Positional Statement, We believe in the
divine, verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original
languages, their consequent inerrancy and infallibility, and as the Word of
God, the Supreme and final authority in faith and life.33
So, if we take their words at face value it would seem that LBPC
believe that there is inerrant and infallible Scriptures which they say is
our Supreme and final authority in faith and life. Could they tell us
where this perfect text in the original languages is? The reality is that
LBPC are posturing a textual position that does not exist, and they knew
it did not exist when they said it. The irony in this is that they and the
SCCC have the audacity to accuse FEBC of holding a false premise on
which to base their conclusions. FEBC, who believe God meant what He
said about preserving His Words, are repeatedly slandered as being
ignorant fanatics and heretics, while those who deny we have the
infallible, inerrant Words of God today are looked upon as great scholars!
Paradoxically, LBPC are arguing that the fact that they do not know what
the Words of God are or where they are at is actually the safe, edifying,
and less dangerous position for their members!
The SCCC and LBPC view of Preservation is like saying Gods
Words are preserved in the Oxford English Dictionarythey are in there
somewhere, all mixed up with thousands that are not right and all out of
order and we dont know how to find them, but they are still preserved
somewhere in there. It is only but fair for these anti-VPP critics to
accept that if the Bible contains any other words than those inspired by
the Holy Spirit then what a man holds in his hands is a compilation of
Gods Words and mans words. As they will not point us to any particular
text as having all of the Words of God, their target is constantly changing,
and is therefore chameleonic. If their theory of preservation is correct a
believer would have to have every manuscript and every version of the
710
Bible to have the collective Word of God, yet he would still be

hopelessly confused about which words were the true Word of God due
to the magnitude of the words he had to collect. Preservation
presupposes possession, for without possession it is not a reality but
merely a theory, a hypothesis lacking documentary evidence. These antiVPP critics seemingly wants to have their cake and eat it too, claiming on
one hand God has preserved His Words, but not wanting to produce it in
any extant or tangible form.
Another leading supporter of this new SCCC view, Calvary Jurong
Bible-Presbyterian Church (CJBPC) has sadly become a victim of the
same semantic gymnastics. They argue in a definitive document,34 citing
the SCCC as support, without seeing the inherent contradiction, that the
KJV translators, have done a wonderful job in producing for us the Word
of God in its entirety, the KJV, which is the closest to the original.
Logically speaking, since we do not have the original this statement of
faith simply confirms a belief that they do not know to what extent the
Scriptures that we have are the Word of God since it is impossible for
them to see how closely they represent the original. CJBPC with this non
sequitur never explain how we have all the entire Word of God yet
argue in the same document that, the Hebrew and Greek texts
underlying the KJV are perfect has no specific scriptural support and
there are at least some textual details in regard to which we must be
content to remain uncertain. CJBPC does not use a single verse of
Scripture to prove this theory that we cannot have certainty as to the
Words of God. The obvious reason is because the Bible does not teach
this! God promises in Proverbs 1:23 the exact opposite, I will pour out
my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. By their own
clever rationalising words, CJBPC have logically reasoned themselves
into unbelief.
Incredibly, CJBPC after denying we have all of the Words of God
preserved perfectly for us today (as the ICCC and WCF teach in respect
of Matt 24:35) then state, We want to assure our members that we can
trust our English KJV because all the doctrines, miracles, prophecies,
facts of history, geography and science are accurate; and all the promises
of God given to men are reliable and trustworthy.
Realising the problems of the WCF statements, CJBPC try a novel
way of getting round the problem by arguing in declaring that the Old
Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek were kept pure in
711
all ages, these confessional statements noticeably do not here use the
word perfect. This is a most dangerous and puerile argument and casts
doubt on the inerrancy and inspiration of the originals. If CJBPC is
correct, then the WCF is teaching that God preserved His words pure in
all ages but in doing this keeping He was not perfect. CJBPC should
not separate the two as both inspiration and preservation are linked to the
Work of God alone and in the same clause in the WCF.
This line of reasoning by CJBPC is an example of blatant bitextualism that cannot possibly be true and must be rejected by true
fundamentalists. They have clearly not grasped the logical problem of the
Law of Non-Contradiction that if two statements claim two different
things, both cannot be correct. However, both can be wrong but both
cannot be right. Jesus promised His Words would not pass away and yet
they accept dozens of His Words are still missing or we are not sure
about. What they are really saying is that, whilst the words originally
written down by the prophets and apostles were free from error and
inspired, the Bible we have in our hands today has errors in it and so
cannot be relied on completely. Now there are two possibilities and only
two. One possibility is that all English versions are in error at least in
part, or there really is a Bible we can get our hands on that literally fulfils
the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:35. If there are errors in all texts and
versions then we have no objective foundation. Logic dictates that two
opposing statements cannot both be true (unless you accept the Hegelian
Dialectic). Has the promise of Christ made about two thousand years ago
stood the test of time? God is not a liar but the God of truth (John 14:6).
CJBPC concludes by piously challenging, If the TR underlying the
KJV is perfect, God will show us clearly and the Holy Spirit will guide
us to this so-called truth, but this is not the case. The fact is that the
Holy Spirit has done this by establishing all the Words of God in a
printed edition for almost 400 years and CJBPC have publicly for its
entire history endorsed this view by preaching exclusively from those
Words. Notwithstanding, the inconsistency of this challenge can also be
seen in that CJBPC state in this document that they believe the Holy
Spirit can lead them to a perfect text, yet since their founding in 1970
they impliedly admit they have failed to seek this. Do they really believe
the Holy Spirit can do this or are they implying that the Third Person in
the Trinity is imperfect? Also, if there are truly textual details that they
say are uncertain why do they not pray to be led to this, all truth?
712
CJBPC need to honestly tell us where in the Bible does it say that
we should wholly trust a Bible that sometimes is accurate but at other
times is in error? They refuse to follow the illustrious writers of the WCF
who clearly believed a text identical to the original manuscripts was
accessible to them. They differ from Abraham, who staggered not at the
promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to
God (Rom 4:20). Instead, they resemble Thomas who cried, Except I
shall see ..., I will not believe (John 20:25). It is my contention that
when CJBPC believe that they can get through this age without an
absolutely infallible text then, as one wise author wrote, Satan is just
around the corner! Genesis 3:4 provides a great example as the devil
only added one word, yet what a change it had on the original, and
what a huge impact that one word had on the destiny of man! Founding
leader of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore and Senior Pastor
of the Calvary churches, Dr S H Tow presciently warns as to the
inevitable consequences of rejecting VPP, Mark these words: The
present attack on the VPP will lead ultimately to a denial and betrayal of
the King James Bible.35 The Bible itself warns that a little error counts a
great deal despite CJBPCs indifference as, Know ye not that a little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump? (l Cor 5:6).
Conclusion
Fundamentalism is collapsing today from its historic position as a
defender of the inspiration, inerrancy and preservation of the Bible.
Parallel with its collapse has been the diminishing of its respect for
Scriptures and Preservation. As Floyd Nolen Jones observes,
The current vogue in conservative, fundamentalist scholarship will come as
a great surprise to the layman. Today, most conservative Protestant
clergymen have been brainwashed as mere youths in their late teens or early
twenties at the various denominational Bible colleges and seminaries
concerning the doctrine of inerrancy of Scripture. As a result, when most of
these pastors etc., declare that they believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration
and/or inerrancy (or some other similar declaration of faith in the
Scriptures) what they really mean is that only the original autographa were
inerrant.
Now this is devastating, as we have no originals preserved for our use. But
the situation is even worse than that, for neither do the vast majority of
these men believe that the text contained in the original autographs has been
preserved intact. That is, they have been taught as very young men that for
713

hundreds of years many original readings have been lost to the Church.
They have also been taught, hence most subscribe to the teaching, that these
lost readings are in the process (and have been so for the past one hundred
years) of being restored back to their pristine original forms by the use of
modern textual criticism techniques and methods. Thus, if we were to ask
one of the scholars representing this school of thought whether he could
show us the infallible Word of the Living God, he would take us to his
private studywave his hand toward between 800-1200 books on his
library shelves and reply that somewhere contained within all those
volumes exists the Word of God. He would inform us that the problem was
very complex, but all was well as he and other brilliant scholars were
working on putting the puzzle back together. Besides, he would assure us,
no major doctrinal issues are in doubt in the meantime.
If we pressed these men further to better define their position, we would
discover that very few believe that there exists on the earth today between
two covers such that it could be held in the handthe Bible. That isin
their view, is that which they hold in their hand having the words Holy
Bible inscribed thereon and read from the pulpit to their flocks, the
inerrant Word of God? If they were honest, regardless of the version to
which they personally subscribe, the answer would be NO!36
We should not be surprised at this attack on the Words of God as

Scripture warns us that Gods true remnant people will be caught out with
the end-time deception (Matt 24:24) and there will be a famine amongst
some for the words of God, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD,
that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for
water, but of hearing the words of the LORD: And they shall wander
from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and
fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it (Amos 8:11-12).
A major lie of the devil is that there is no final Bible, which will lead
many into profound despair and bondage as they are Ever learning, and
never able to come to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:7-9).
Despite the claims of the anti-VPP critics such as the SCCC, we
have no historical record of Christians not believing the doctrine of
perfect preservation until the 19th century. Nowhere in any formalised
Confession of Faith regarding the Holy Bible will you ever see such
common phrases as used by the anti-Preservationists of today like only
in the originals or only in the autographs. This is a new view which
appeared at the end of the 19th century from the influence of the apostate
roots of higher criticism. Many reputed fundamentalists like the author of
714
the Beacon Article, Philip Tang, are now openly admitting that they
believe there is no scriptural basis for believing God would preserve all
of His Words for us today. This is a new view in Fundamentalist circles
and has been popularised by leading Neo-Evangelical Dallas Theological
Seminary professor, Daniel B Wallace. A prominent anti-KJV writer,
William Combs, professor at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary,
admits the novelty of this new position,
In an article entitled Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual
Criticism, by Daniel B. Wallace, we find what is apparently the first
definitive, systematic denial of a doctrine of preservation of Scripture. He
has been joined in his view by W. Edward Glenny. ... The position of
Wallace and Glenny appears to be a rather novel one. ... They have
eliminated any vestige of the preservation of Scripture as a doctrine.37
Even some of the most trenchant critics of the Textus Receptus have
accepted the historical fact of the VPP view as equated with that of
historical orthodoxy. Kurt Aland the principal editor of the Nestle-Aland
edition of Novum Testamentum Graece writes,
Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxys
doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only
Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the original text.38
Another critic, Merrill M Parvis states, The Textus Receptus is not

the true text of the New Testament, but concedes,
It [the TR] was the Scripture of many centuries of the Churchs life. ... The
Textus Receptus is the text of the Church. It is that form of text which
represents the sum total and the end product of all the textual decisions
which were made by the Church and her Fathers over a period of more than
a thousand years.39
Another, E C Colwell has admitted that those who are committed to

the absolute authority of preservation will ultimately reject textual
criticism,
It is often assumed by the ignorant and uninformedeven on a university
campusthat textual criticism of the New Testament is supported by a
superstitious faith in the Bible as a book dictated in miraculous fashion by
God. That is not true. Textual criticism has never existed for those whose
New Testament is one of miracle, mystery, and authority. A New Testament
created under those auspices would have been handed down under them
and would have no need of textual criticism.40
715
The SCCC may wish the ICCC resolutions had never been passed
and they are at liberty to disagree with them. However, it is surely
unethical and unbiblical to simply wrench the statements out of context
and retreat behind new formulations such as continuing, general, but not
plenary preservation without explaining the conclusions of it. Their
novel position is basically no position, but an attack on VPP without
stating a position that comes from Scripture. Like the textual critics of the
mid 19 th century, they have simply denied the historic doctrine of
preservation. The SCCC should heed the warnings of Richard Capel, one
of the Westminster divines, in undermining the preservation of Scripture
when he wrote in 1658:
And to the like purpose is that observation, that the two Tables written
immediately by Moses and the Prophets, and the Greek Copies immediately
penned by the Apostles, and Apostolical men are all lost, or not to be made
use of, except by a very few. And that we have none in Hebrew or Greek,
but what are transcribed. Now transcribers are ordinary men, subject to
mistake, may faile, having no unerring spirit to hold their hands in writing.
Referring to these types of statements, Capel immediately writes:

These be terrible blasts, and do little else when they meet with a weak head
and heart, but open the doore to Atheisme and quite to fling off the bridle,
which onely can hold them and us in the wayes of truth and piety: this is to
fill the conceits of men with evil thoughts against the Purity of the
Originals: And if the Fountains run not clear, the Translation cannot be
clean.41
Another of the original members of the Westminster assembly, John

Lightfoot, writes, The same power and care of God, that preserves the
church would preserve the Scriptures pure to it: and He that did, and
could, preserve the whole could preserve every part, so that not so much
as a tittle should perish.42
The SCCC clearly are embarrassed by the previous strongly KJVO
stance of the ICCC and are using all kinds of rhetorical muddle and
verbal gymnastics to confuse the gullible. The SCCC are left with a Bible
with errors in it; a position that I am confident that the majority of their
members in the pew of their churches do not accept or have not
historically accepted. One unfortunate consequence of this type of
reasoning has opened the door to Islamic scholars and higher critics to
undermine the Bible. Leading Islamic apologist, Ahmed Deedat uses this
very line of reasoning,
716

The question before us is: Do you accept that the Bible is Gods Word?
The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not
simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a
debate. We have every right to demand in a similar veinWhich Bible are
you talking about?, we may ask. Why, there is only ONE Bible! he
mutters.
But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the Worlds Best
Seller? These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to
say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the
RSV reads;
THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS
WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED THE NOBLEST
MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE. ITS REVISERS IN 1881
EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY,
ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC
OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM. IT
ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE
PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF
THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN
INCALCULABLE DEBT.
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the
Book of Books than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing
Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own
beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:
yet the King James Version has grave defects. And, that these defects are
so many and so serious as to call for revision. This is straight from the
horses mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of the highest
eminence. Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to
produce an encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND
SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating
them.43
Other groups such as the Jehovah Witnesses have also used the same
reasoning to undermine the credibility of the King James Version of the
Bible,
Recently a young man purchased a King James Version Bible thinking it
was without error. One day when glancing through a back issue of Look
magazine he came across an article entitled The Truth About the Bible,
which said that as early as 1720, an English authority estimated that there
were at least 20,000 errors in the two editions of the New Testament
commonly read by Protestants and Catholics. Modern students say there are
717

probably 50,000 errors. The young man was shocked. His faith in the
Bibles authenticity was shaken. How can the Bible be reliable when it
contains thousands of serious discrepancies and inaccuracies? he asks.44
A leading Roman Catholic apologist also attacks,

The reason this is so intriguing should be obvious, one of the two pillars of
Protestantism is scripture alone yet these two bibles do not agree. If two
bibles disagree, which one is wrong, are both wrong? Both claim that you
cannot add to or take from the word of the Lord, yet they differ. Why?
Which one is right? How much do they differ? Does it affect doctrine? Who
changed it? Some of the verses are total opposites, other verses are simply
not saying the same thing.45
One of the leading anti-VPP books being promoted by SCCC

members is One Bible Only? from Central Baptist Theological Seminary
which states the doctrine of preservation was not a doctrine of the
ancient church, and we might have lost a few words through
negligence, and not only is Scripture without a verse to explain how
God will preserve His Word, but no statement in Scripture teaches that
God did preserve perfectly the original text of Scripture.46 These men
who deny the preservation of all of Gods Words for us today because of
history or textual science and textual uncertainties need to be told,
Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the
power of God? (Mark 12:24). A stark warning of the dangers of
compromising on the doctrine of preservation is the fact that two of the
authors of this book, Edward Glenny and Larry Pettegrew, have
subsequently both rejected Fundamentalism completely and now teach at
openly Neo-evangelical seminaries.47
It is well documented that the vast majority of seminarians and
pastors no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Even in
Fundamentalism, in a recent survey of young fundamentalists beliefs
only 83% of the responders agreed with the statement that the Bible is
the inspired Word of God, not mistaken in its statements and teachings,
and is to be taken literally, word for word. As David Cloud observed,
More than 90% of the responders are graduates of schools that have
taken a clear stand against the defense of the KJV, with the largest
representation (a full 79% of the total) from Bob Jones University (29%),
Maranatha Baptist Bible College (22%), Northland Baptist Bible College
(21%), Piedmont Baptist College (4%), and Detroit Baptist Theological
Seminary (3%).48 The consequence of this falling away in the pulpit is
718
that fewer and fewer professing Christians believe in the inerrancy of

Scripture every day. This anti-VPP presupposition also affected Princeton
graduate and famed textual critic, Bart Ehrman, to the point that he now
confesses to being an agnostic. He pertinently observed how the problem
of a Bible with errors in it affected him in a recent book Misquoting
Jesus,
If one wants to insist that God inspired the very words of scripture, what
would be the point if we dont have the very words of scripture? Its a bit
hard to know what the words of the Bible mean if we dont even know what
the words are!
This became a problem for my view of inspiration, for I came to realize that
it would have been no more difficult for God to preserve the words of
scripture than it would have been for him to inspire them in the first place.
If he wanted his people to have his words, surely he would have given to
them (and possibly even given them the words in a language they could
understand, rather than Greek and Hebrew). The fact that we dont have the
words surely must show, I reasoned, that he did not preserve them for us.
And if he didnt perform that miracle, there seemed to be no reason to think
that he performed the earlier miracle of inspiring those words.49
One Neo-evangelical writer, Mark Roberts, accepts that we cannot

have all of the Words today but tries to make a virtue out of Ehrmans
difficulties,
The question Ehrman should have asked was: What does it tell us about
God that He inspired the writers of Scripture but did not perfectly preserve
what they wrote down? The answer, I think, is that God was looking for
something beyond making sure we always had His actual words. Gods
primary purpose in inspiring the writers of Scripture was not so that people
would have His words, but so that they would be drawn into a truthful
relationship with Him. The words matter, to be sure, but only as a vehicle
for a relationship of faith with the living God. Some modest uncertainty
about the words might, it seems, cause one to lean more upon God and less
upon the words themselves.50
However despite the attempts of obfuscation by the SCCC and their

erstwhile allies in Singapore, we believe that God has preserved all of
His Words available for us today as the TBS rightly stated, the Church
isand always has beenin possession of the true text of Scripture. It
would be surely inconsistent if God had guided His people in regard to
the New Testament canon but had withheld from them His divine
assistance in the matter of the New Testament text. God promised to
719
preserve the very Words and Letters of the original manuscripts. He did
not promise to preserve ink and paper. There is no biblical warrant for the
concept that only the autographs can be true and pure Scripture. Are we
to believe that God has preserved the canon of the Bible but not the text?
If we are not settled on what the Words of God are on earth, will we ever
be settled? If we are not settled on the Words, what is the scriptural basis
to be settled on the Books? We do know that other sound orthodox books
existed that are mentioned in the Old and New Testament. Where are
they? Is it possible that we are not including books that should be there?
Why not? So anti-VPP critics are arguing for canonised books (based on
words) but not canonised words.
The factual reality is that the present-day copies of the inspired
originals are the only evidence available to support the inspiration of
those originals. A liberal theologian cleverly pointed out the implication
of anti-VPP in his review of Harold Lindsells The Battle for the Bible
when he argues that the only real difference between the conservative
anti-VPP and liberal positions on the Bible is that the conservatives say
the Bible used to be inspired and inerrant, whereas the liberal says it was
never inspired or inerrant. However both positions are in agreement that
the Bible is not now inspired or inerrant. A leading Neo-evangelical
author, Tim Challies, is at least honest as to where rejecting VPP leads,
It is critical to note that, strictly speaking, inerrancy does not apply to the
transmission of Scripture through the ages and its translation into other
languages. We affirm that only the original autographs, or original
manuscripts, are inerrant. What we enjoy today is very good translations of
very accurate reconstructions of the biblical text. We do not have any of the
original documentsnone of Pauls original letters and none of the actual
gospels written by the hands of the Apostles have survived. Yet through the
science of textual criticism we have very accurate reconstructions of those
texts and through translators we have excellent translations of them. So
while we do not affirm inerrancy for any particular English translation of
Scripture, we do have great confidence in the best translations available to
us.51
When challenged to prove inspiration the anti-VPPers usually cite 2

Timothy 3:16 (All scripture is given by inspiration of God ...), but this
passage says nothing about the original autographs, it refers to
scripture. 2 Timothy 3:15 gives us the interpretation of this word
scripture as it tells us that Timothy from a child hast known the holy
scriptures. No anti-VPPer would argue that Timothy (or Paul, the
720
Bereans, or even Christ) was in possession of the autographs, yet Paul

calls the copies they possessed, scripture and that it was all inspired.
It is inconceivable that in the middle of an exhortation to cling to his
copies that Paul would suddenly change topic and start talking about the
originals. Clearly, Paul was not an anti-VPP critic who argued that
inspiration and preservation were in the autographs only. The context
of these words is showing that Gods Words are not lost waiting to be
found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. These
inspired Words were given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ
that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good
works. Therefore, for God to realise His stated purposeit must remain
accessible to His remnant! The giving of these Words to the world is by
the Church (Matt 28:19-20), and this surely means that the Church must
have the Words to begin with. If God cannot preserve His Words as well
as He inspired them, He is not omnipotent after all. Did Christ ask the
Pharisees to search an impure errant copy in John 5? Were the Bereans
searching imperfect Scriptures in Acts 17? Did Philip tell the Ethiopian
that his copy in Acts 8 had translation errors?
Dr Thomas Strouse gives an excellent summary of why we can be so
confident of the perfect preservation of Gods Words,
For instance Christ reiterated the OT command of Dt. 8:3 by stating,
It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God (Mt. 4:4).
The expression every word translates panti remati, and it specifically
refers to each and every word. Where are these very words by which man is
to live? Again, Christ implied the preservation of His very words as a
standard of future judgment by stating,
The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day (Jn.
12:48).
The expression the word translates ho logos and it refers to the totality of
Christs words (cf.v.47). Where is the totality of Christs words by which
man will be judged some day? Based on verses such as these, the Christian
has a Biblical warrant for expecting to have all of the words of Christ.
These passages demand faith in the Lords providential preservation of His
inspired autographa. The clearest passage on Christs providential
preservation of Scripture and mans responsibility in receiving it is John
17:8,
721

For I have given unto them the words which though gavest me; and they
have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and
they have believed that thou didst send me.
This passage teaches that Christs responsibility before the Father is to give
His believers the Fathers words.52
Dr Kent Brandenburg also summarises,

Isaac was the seed of promise and Ishmael of human effort. Hagar was
doubt and works, and Sarai was faith and trust. The just live by faith. The
baby Isaac came by a miracle of Gods providence, the Lord working out
the details based upon faith in Him. In this Abraham and Sarah found
approval from God. Textual criticism stands in mans efforts. Man will give
his approval (schools, circles, camps, human scholarship, etc.). Receiving
the text handed down through the churches stands by faith in the grace of
God.
Gods Word says that God will preserve His Word, every and all (Psalm
12:6, 7; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Matthew 5:18; 24:35). I believe
God would preserve every One of His Words.
Scripture says that God would make His Words available to every
generation of believer (Isaiah 59:21; Matthew 4:4). I believe God would
make His Words generally accessible to every generation of saints.
The Bible says that Gods Word is perfect and pure (Psalm 12:6, 7;
Proverbs 30:4, 5). I believe that Gods Word is perfect and pure.
Gods Word says that the Bible will be settled to the extent that someone
could not add or take away from His Words (Revelation 22:18, 19;
Deuteronomy 12:32). I believe that Gods Word would be settled.
The Bible says that God would lead His saints into all truth, that the Word,
all of His Words, are truth (John 16:13; 17:8, 17). I believe that God would
lead His children to every one of His Words.
When we see what God has taught about His Words and the preservation of
them, we choose to believe what He said, despite tangible evidence.
Individual hand-copies had errors. God said that men would change the
Words of Scripture. He warned of it. We see that this is the strategy of
Satan, to amend the Words of God. However, God promised and so we
believe that He overcame the work of Satan and preserved His Words so
that we would have a settled text that is perfect in fulfillment of His
promises. The textus receptus of the NT and the Hebrew Masoretic of the
OT are the only texts that could have been preserved and available. They
are the only texts that believers will claim perfection.
I wasnt there when God created the world. I believe it anyway. I wasnt
there when God inspired His Word. I believe it anyway. I wasnt there when
722

Jesus died on the cross. I believe it anyway. I wasnt there when God
preserved His Words. I believe it anyway. God will be pleased with your
reception of the Words He preserved.53
VPP advocates readily admit that we do not have all the answers as
to how God preserved His Words in every generation. The truth is we do
not have the original manuscripts, the first copies of the original
manuscripts, and even many of the actual copies from which the KJV
translators worked. The best that most textual historians can do today is
essentially to speculate on what is the history of the transmission of the
text. We cannot prove everything that we believe historically happened
with tangible evidence, but enough to satisfy someone who is willing to
believe Scripture. After all none of us have seen creation, a worldwide
flood or the ark, but we accept the Genesis account of this. We simply
cannot assert that this God has revealed Himself in the pages of a book
without at the same time implying that such a revelation is necessary to
us. As David Cloud explains,
Those who reject the doctrine of preservation mock us because we cannot
answer all their questions. Let them mock. We have Gods promise on these
things. We have an infallible Bible we can hold in our hands. They have one
in theory only in the nonexistent original autographs. In my estimation, they
have far more problems with that position than I do with mine. What do we
care if some think we are foolish or unlearned? Was that not the charge
brought against the first Christians by their proud detractors? Dear friends,
believe God and do not allow any man to shake your confidence in His
perfect, preserved Wordthe late Bruce Lackey, a Bible-believing scholar
who studied the Greek New Testament every day but who never taught his
students to question the Received Text or the King James Bible: Faith
which is based on a clear promise is stronger than objections which are
raised by our lack of information. Since God has promised to preserve His
Word for all generations, and since the Hebrew and Greek which is
represented by the King James Version is the Bible that has been received
from ancient tradition, and since God has so singularly used the truth
preached from this Bible, I must follow it and reject others where they
differ.54
Pastor of Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian Church, Rev Dr Quek

Suan Yew, also rejects any undermining of the biblical presupposition on
preservation,
To argue that one must know the process first before one can believe that
the Word of God is perfectly preserved is very dangerous. This line of
723

argument is based upon modernistic rationalism where mans reason is
supreme. If man cannot understand or explain it, then it cannot be true. Man
can never understand the process of inspiration, yet it is true because God
says that it is true. The final product is not the words of man but the very
Word of God. Faith is to believe in what God says, period. There is no
necessity to know the process first before believing.55
Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Joint Chairman of the World Congress of

Fundamentalists and Founder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster,
shows the necessity of believing in preservation and inspiration,
There is no such thing as verbal Revelation without verbal Inspiration and
there is no such thing as verbal Inspiration without verbal Preservation. In
all cases it is not partial but plenary i.e. full, complete, perfect.
though Divine Inspiration, must have Divine Preservation in order to be
available to all generations If there is no preserved Word of God today
then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished.56
The most damning thing in all of this is that when we read the
confusing and bewildering statements issued by the SCCC, the Beacon
Article and their supporters in Singapore is that nowhere do they posit a
positive biblical statement on preservation. This position is ideal for
arguing a straw man in misrepresenting VPP and posing inane questions
such as: Where does it say God would preserve His Words in the texts of
the KJV? The irony is that they themselves have no Scripture to argue
that God said He would preserve it as a work in progress in many texts
and manuscripts in a way that in 2008 we are confused, uncertain and
constantly changing our minds as to the true text. They spend their time
disingenuously arguing how much they disagree with VPP and criticising
its foundations. However, they can only say what they are against but
they have no developed biblical framework for their source of authority.
If one side has clearly stated scriptural presuppositions and the other does
not, save for attacking the former, that surely is suggestive. This is a
dangerous approach for as Dr Martin Lloyd Jones warns, We do not
debate the truth, we declare it.
Despite copious writings and resolutions, the sad reality of the
position they vehemently argue for results in a Bible text that at best can
only be a never-ending work of approximation as we do not have the
originals with which to make a comparison. However few the
discrepancies they claim are there, we are still left with a Bible that is in
724
part the work of man and so is uncertain and not entirely reliable. It
certainly makes redundant the test, to the law and to the testimony: if
they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in
them (Isa. 8:20). However, from the very beginning God revealed His
thoughts speaking to Adam in words. Today, God continues to speak to us
in Words. God has determined what His Words are, and is man to now do
his best to logically guess what they might be? Indeed, the very
acknowledgement of a Bible is an admission of Gods purpose in
preserving His Words for man to live by.
The SCCC claims to believe what the Bible says about its own
inspiration, but virtually ignores the equally direct statements concerning
preservation of these same inspired Words. We are kept by the power of
God, holy men of God wrote under the power of God, and Scripture is
preserved by the power of God. We should simply just receive all three
by faith. Without this perfect text we have no authoritative Wordson
anything! We say with C H Spurgeon,
We will never attempt to save half the truth by casting any part of it away.
The sage advice which has been given us involved treason to God, and
disappointment to ourselves. We will stand by all or none. We will have the
whole Bible or no Bible. We are told that if we give up something the
adversaries will also give up something; but we care not what they will do,
for we are not the least afraid of them. ... We shall with the sword of the
Spirit maintain the whole truth as ours, and shall not accept a part of it as a
grant from the enemies of God. ... God being with us we shall not cease
from this glorying, but will hold the whole of revealed truth, even to the
end.57
Let us determine to believe what God said He would do, For we

can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor 13:8).
Annexure One: The ICCC Amsterdam Resolution on the Bible

(1998)
WHEREAS despite the fact that there are over 150 so-called
versions of the Bible extant around the world today, there have been no
new discoveries of ancient texts to legitimize this plethora of modern
versions pouring off the presses and being sold as the latest Bible,
and
WHEREAS a single exception to this has been the discovery of the
now-famous Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s in caves on the Judean
725
mountain range and contained in clay jars with the texts written on
leather and papyrus, and
WHEREAS fragments of all the books of the Hebrew Bible (except
Esther) confirm almost to the letter the accuracy of the Authorized King
James Version of the Old Testament, and
WHEREAS most of the modern versions are based upon the
discredited and perverted Westcott and Hort transcription and not on the
Textus Receptus (The Received Text) attested to by scholars for over 300
years, from which the Authorized King James Version was translated by
the greatest theologians and textual critics of 17th Century England, who
were academic experts, indeed, in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and
WHEREAS self-styled theologians who reject the inerrancy and
inspiration of the Scriptures have gone so far as to make a looseleaf
notebook and tear out those passages they do not accept, even organizing
what they designate as Jesus Seminars across the United States in
which they declare that Jesus never did and said the things recorded in
the four Gospels; and that the Gospel of John is the worst and is 90
percent fiction, and the obedient secular press quotes them from coast-tocoast, and
WHEREAS this same KING JAMES VERSION has been used
around the world by an overwhelming majority of Christian Clergymen,
Evangelists, Bible Teachers, Missionaries and Youth Leaders to bring
millions of people to have a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ
for more than three centuries,
Christian Churches, assembled in the historic English Reformed Church
in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, observing its 50th Anniversary, August
11-15, 1998, urge all Bible-believing churches worldwide to use only the
Authorized KING JAMES VERSION in their services and in their
teaching ministry, and warn the followers of Christ against these
innumerable new bibles which are not translations at all, but revisions
conforming to the personal bias and views of those who have originated
them and who are profiting by commercial sales of such.
726
Annexure Two: The ICCC Jerusalem Statement on the Holy

Scriptures and the Bible Translations (2000)
BELIEVING the Holy Scriptures of the originals to be fully inspired
with its words and genders and being complete as Gods revelation to
man without error;
BELIEVING that God not only inspired the Bible without errors in
fact, doctrine and judgment but preserved the Scriptures in all ages for all
eternity as the Westminster Confession of Faith standard saysthe O.T.
in Hebrew and the N.T. in Greek ... being immediately inspired by God
and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages are
therefore kept authentical.... they are to be translated into the vulgar
language of every nation unto which they come,
BELIEVING the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, gave us
a supernatural gift, and both inspired and preserved it. By inspired we
mean that the Holy Spirit moved in the hearts of its human authors that
they recorded the very words that God wanted written in the Bible using
the personality and background of its writers but without error. For the
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. II Peter 1:21.
BELIEVING God safeguarded the Bible in times past and will
continue to do so in the future and all eternity. He preserved one Holy
Scripture, the Bible. Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words
shall not pass away; Matthew 24:35.
BELIEVING the O.T. has been preserved in the Masoretic text and
the N.T. in the Textus Receptus, combined they gave us the complete
Word of God. The King James Version in English has been faithfully
translated from these God-preserved manuscripts. Other good Protestants
versions have been translated around the world in many languages based
on the Masoretic and Textus Receptus until 1881 when Drs. Westcott and
Hort used a shorter text removing many words, phrases and sections by
following the eclectic watered down polluted Vaticanus and Siniaticus
manuscripts; These manuscripts differ widely among themselves and
with others amount to less than 5% of the manuscript evidence. God
preserved the Textus Receptus in the majority text with 95%. This is
called the traditional, or majority text. It is also called Eastern Byzantine
text and also the manuscripts that have the longer and fuller texts;
727
BELIEVING that these longer texts are corroborated by the early

century versions from the Greek that were closer in the time of the
original Greek manuscripts that have been lost usage in the providence of
God. Some of these are the Armenian, Old Latin, the Siriac Pershita and
the Latin Vulgate; these date much before or close to the Vaticanus short
version and Siniaticus; Believing the letters that the early church fathers
wrote to the churches and to their colleagues corroborate that the 1000s
of quotes from the Scriptures they used, are from the traditional longer
texts of the Textus Receptus;
BELIEVING the manuscript evidence is on the side of Textus
Receptus and with the many new books that explained this better than in
times past and give more documentary manuscript evidence, We the
International Council of Christian Churches meeting in Jerusalem, 8-14
November 2000 strongly urge the churches in their pulpits and people at
large, to continue to use the time honored and faithful longer translations
and not the new shorter versions that follow in too many places the short
eclectic-texts. These are very similar to the shorter Westcott and Hort
texts that remove or cast doubt on so many passages and words.
Furthermore we are not against new versions as such but believe all true
and faithful versions must be based on the traditional longer texts that the
Holy Spirit preserved through the early century versions, the early church
fathers and the faithful Textus Receptus.
Notes
The Beacon Article says, The Bible Resolution appears to be ignorant of
the fact that God made used of the Westcott & Hort based Chinese Bible
(
) in bringing many millions of Chinese Christians to Christ through great
evangelists like Wang Ming Dao (
), John Sung Shang Chieh (
)
and many others. However, the Beacon Authors do not tell us do they believe
God has preserved more of His Words in the text underlying the CUV or the KJV.
That is the critical issue.
2
Ironically, Joshua Lim decries his ability to give theological and doctrinal
analyses in another article which he styles as An Open Letter to the redeemed of
the Lamb of God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ in which he protests, I am no
theologian and I do not wish to delve with the VPP issue. http://
valiantfortruth.tripod.com/elderappeal.htm, accessed on 8 October 2008. Philip
Tang in his own limited description in the Beacon Article does not appear to be
any more qualified to speak definitively on theology as his sole qualifications are
that he has been a member of the Bible-Presbyterian Church since 1971.
1
728

Jeffrey Khoo, Kicking Against the Pricks: The SCCC contradicts the
ICCC on VPP, The Burning Bush 14 (2008):71.
4
Bob Jones University, Position of the Bible Department of Bob Jones
University on the Scripture (mimeograph). Office of the President, no date.
Printed in Daniel L Turner, Standing Without Apology: The History of Bob Jones
University (Greenville: Bob Jones University Press, 1997) Appendix D, 322-3.
5
Edward M Panosian, What Is the Inspired Word of God? Faith for the
Family (February 1979): 3.
6
Samuel Schnaiter, Relevancy of Textual Criticism, cited at http://
www.wayoflife.org/fbns/preservationis.htm, accessed on 8 October 2008.
7
Samuel Schnaiter and Ron Tagliapietra, Bible Preservation and the
Providence of God (Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2002), 25-6.
8
A Forgotten Reformation at http://www.gracebpc.org.sg/weekly/2008/
Oct 2008/1210/gwb.htm, accessed on 15 October 2008.
9
See http://www.vannoylib.ibri.org/OTProphets/htm/doc003.html, accessed
on 13 October 2008.
10
The Rev Colin Wong stated in his message, Did God Write Only One
Bible? at Life Bible-Presbyterian Church on 28 October 2007, Since the
translation of the KJV or the Authorized Version of 1611 there has been more
concrete manuscript evidence that is available today, which is far superior to that
which was available to the King James Version translators in 1611.
11
Trinitarian Bible Society, Statement of Faith of Holy Scripture, Note 3,
page 6, http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf, accessed on 8
October 2008.
12
Philip Tang, The New Pharisees, http://www.truth.sg/response/
The New Pharisees1.pdf, accessed on 8 October 2008.
13
Ironically, Philip Tang previously sought to accuse FEBC of doing what
in effect he is guilty of when he argues that FEBC has rejected the reformed
position that revelation and miraculous gifts have ceased with the close of the
apostolic age. By so doing they are advocating post-canonical inspiration and
progressive revelation cited from Philip Tang, VPP: Truth or Lies?, http://
www.truth.sg/response/vpplies.htm, accessed on 8 October 2008.
14
Life Bible-Presbyterian Church, Our Stand on the Preservation of
Scriptures, http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm, accessed on 8
October 2008.
15
Kent Brandenburg, Criticizing Professor Wallace: Part Three, http://
www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com, accessed on 8 October 2008.
16
David H Sorenson, Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and
Separation (Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001), 53.
17
Tang, The New Pharisees.
18
Tang, The New Pharisees.
3
729

Re-affirming SCCC Stand on the Word of God, Far Eastern Beacon 39
(Easter 2008): 4.
20
Trinitarian Bible Society, Statement of Faith of Holy Scripture, Word
List.
21
Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?, http://bbaptist.org/pdf/
which_version.pdf, accessed on 8 October 2008.
22
Isaac Ong, A Response to A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of
Verbal Plenary Preservation, http://valiantfortruth.tripod.com/
contendfortruth.html, accessed on 8 October 2008.
23
Scriptures.
24
Yap Beng Shin, FAQ Masoretic Text, http://valiantfortruth.
tripod.com/MT_FAQ.htm, accessed on 8 October 2008.
25
Fred Moritz, Contending for the Faith (Greenville: Bob Jones University
Press, 2000), 92.
26
Edward Glenny, The Preservation of Scripture, in The Bible Version
Debate (Minneapolis: Central Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997), 82.
27
Re-affirming SCCC Stand on the Word of God, 4.
28
Scriptures.
29
Ibid.
30
Rendel Harris, Side Lights on New Testament Research (London:
Kingsgate Press,1908), 3.
31
F C Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism (London: Watts &
Co, 1910), 129.
32
Kirsopp Lake, Family 13, The Ferrar Group (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1941), vii.
33
A Doctrinal Positional Statement of Life BP Church, http://
www.lifebpc.com/aboutlifebpc/doctrinalposition.htm, accessed on 8 October
2008.
34
Paper presented on Sunday, 6 November 2005, to the congregation of
Calvary Jurong B-P Church by Rev James Chan Lay Seng, Pastor of Calvary
Jurong Bible-Presbyterian Church, http://www.truth.sg/response/caljurong.htm,
accessed on 8 October 2008.
35
S H Tow, Gospel SafeguardVPP, Calvary Pandan Bible-Presbyterian
Church Weekly (1 January 2006).
36
Floyd Nolen Jones, Which Version is the Bible?
37
William Combs, The Preservation of Scripture, Detroit Baptist
Seminary Journal 5 (2000): 7.
38
Kurt Aland, The Text of the Church?, Trinity Journal 8 (1987): 131.
39
Merrill M Parvis, The Goals of New Testament Textual Studies, Studia
Evangelica 6 (1973): 406.
19
730

E C Colwell, What is the Best New Testament? (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1952), 8.
41
Richard Capel, Capels Remains (London: np, 1658), 19-43.
42
John Lightfoot, The Whole Works of Rev John Lightfoot (London: J F
Dowe, 1822-5), 408.
43
Ahmed Deedat, Is the Bible the Word of God?, http://www.jamaat.net/
bible/Bible1-3.html, accessed on 8 October 2008.
44
Awake (8 September 1957).
45
From http://www.catholicapologetics.net/apolo_84.htm, accessed on 8
October 2008.
46
Rapids: Kregel, 2001), 93, 95, 99.
47
Edward Glenny is now Professor of New Testament and Greek at
Northwestern College, St Pauls. Larry Pettegrew teaches now at John
MacArthurs The Masters Seminary.
48
A survey of Young Fundamentalists Beliefs and Personal Life, http://
www.wayoflife.org/fbns/survey-young-fund.html, accessed on 8 October 2008.
49
Bart D Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 11.
50
Mark Roberts, The Bible, the Quran, Bart Ehrman, and the Words of
God, http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles/resources/biblequran.htm#jan2006,
accessed on 8 October 2008.
51
Tim Challies, What Does Inerrant Mean?, http://www.challies.com/
archives/articles/scripture/what-does-inerrant-mean.php, accessed on 8 October
2008.
52
Thomas Strouse, The Biblical Defense for the Verbal Plenary
Preservation of Gods Word, http://www.graceway.com/articles/
article_007.html, accessed on 8 October 2008.
53
Kent Brandenburg, The Way of Approval, http://
kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?start-index=26, accessed on 8
October 2008.
54
David Cloud, The problems of Bible preservation/Can you answer all
the questions?, http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/problemswith.htm, accessed on 8
October 2008.
55
Quek Suan Yew, Jesus on the Perfect Preservation of the Bible Bible
Witness (March-April 2005): 6.
56
Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword: the English Authorised
Version (KJV) (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997), 102-3.
57
C H Spurgeon, The Greatest Fight in the World (Pasadena: Pilgrim
Publications, 1990 reprint), 33-4.
40
731
65
TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY, VERBAL
PLENARY PRESERVATION, AND THE TEXTS
UNDERLYING THE AUTHORISED VERSION
Paul Ferguson
Life BPC1 and others2 have been arguing, in a most misleading
manner, that the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) position is in
contradistinction/opposed to the position of VPP of FEBC.
Notwithstanding, that the TBS has issued no public statement to this
effect, let us compare the TBS official position with both Life BPC and
FEBC. All of the following quotations have been drawn from The
Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture3 issued by all the Members of
the General Committee, the Vice-Presidents and the General Secretary
in 2005. The TBS state very clearly that:
In conformity to Gods purpose, promise, and command, faithful and
accurate copies were made (Deuteronomy 17:18; Proverbs 25:1) and,
through Gods special providential care, His Word has been preserved in all
generations (Psalm 119:152; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 16:17; 1 Peter
1:25).4
The TBS also state in the Preface that they hold to,
The Reformation Confessions such as the Westminster (1647), the Savoy
(1658), and the London Baptist (1689), state regarding Scripture that, The
Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the native language of the people of
God of old,) and the New Testament in Greek, (which at the time of the
writing of it, was most generally known to the nations,) being immediately
inspired by God, and, by his singular care and providence, kept pure in
all ages, are therefore authentical (WCF 1:8).
So we can conclude from these statements that the TBS believe all
the Words of God have been providentially preserved pure and in all
ages. Also, the preserving of these Words has been done by God and not
man so we cannot believe that this would be done carelessly or by
accident. We cannot play semantics and say that pure only means really
99.9% as it can only rationally mean 100% and perfect as the WCF state
732
TBS, VPP, and the Texts Underlying the Authorised Version
that it was done by God, who cannot err as any impurity as a little
leaven leaveneth the whole lump. The question now is: where does the
TBS state the pure Words of God are? They say,
The Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles received the preserved and
standard Hebrew text of the Old Testament as Scripture (Luke 4:16-19, 21;
2 Timothy 3:16). This serves as our pattern for accepting the historically
received text of the New Testament also as Scripture (1 Timothy 5:18 cf.
Luke 10:7; 2 Peter 3:15-16) These texts of Scripture reflect the qualities
of God-breathed Scripture, including being authentic, holy, pure, true,
infallible, trustworthy, excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient,
perspicuous, self-interpreting, authoritative and inerrant (Psalm 19:7-9,
Psalm 119). They are consequently to be received as the Word of God (Ezra
7:14; Nehemiah 8:8; Daniel 9:2; 2 Peter 1:19) and the correct reading at
any point is to be sought within these texts.5
So, these texts are to be received the same way Christ and the
apostles received them i.e. as the perfectly preserved and inspired
Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), as they are pure, true, infallible, trustworthy,
excellent, self-authenticating, necessary, sufficient, perspicuous, selfinterpreting, authoritative and inerrant. Therefore, we can safely
conclude that the TBS believe that these texts can be said to be the
perfect 100% inspired Words of God. Now, which texts are they
referring to? The TBS state,
The Trinitarian Bible Society maintains that the providentially preserved
true and authentic text is to be found in the Masoretic Hebrew and the
Greek Received Texts. In so doing, it follows the historic, orthodox
Protestant position of acknowledging as Holy Scripture the Hebrew and
Greek texts consistently accessible to and preserved among the people
of God in all ages. These texts had remained in common use in different
parts of the world for more than fifteen centuries and they faithfully
represent the texts used in New Testament times.6
So, the TBS state very clearly that the true and authentic text is
found in the Masoretic and Received Texts, but only those from the
Received text family. It adds a further limb of proof here which is
important as it must only be in those texts that are consistently
accessible to and preserved among the people of God in all ages. This
would appear to expressly rule out any such concept of a Majority Text
position that preservation is throughout the ages in all the extant
manuscripts, versions and the citations by the Church fathers. However,
how does the TBS define as the, Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek
Received Texts?
733

The Society accepts as the best edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text the
one prepared in 1524-25 by Jacob ben Chayyim and known, after David
Bomberg the publisher, as the Bomberg text. The Greek Received Text is
the name given to a group of printed texts, the first of which was
published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. The Society uses for the
purposes of translation the text reconstructed by F.H.A. Scrivener in 1894.7
It should be noted carefully that the Greek Received Text is

defined by the TBS as the name given to a group of printed texts, the
first of which was published by Desiderius Erasmus in 1516. This
clearly does not include any other so-called Majority Text from any
other Byzantine Family manuscripts that are extant today that differ from
any of the printed texts. We can only logically conclude that the TBS
only accept these printed texts as having the true and authentic text
of the pure Providentially Preserved Word of God.
Life BPC have tried to argue that the TBS statement does not mean
this and that the TBS allow latitude of interpretation in that they believe
all of the Words of God are preserved somewhere in the extant
manuscripts within the Byzantine Text family. However, the TBS
clearly state they only view the printed texts not the extant manuscripts
as the Greek Received Text, which they also state is definitive and the
final point of reference in all the Societys work. However, in a final and
surely decisive blow to the Life BPC position, the TBS also, in their
definition of the Majority Text, expressly and definitively rule out any
such view as Biblically valid,
Majority Text: A text based on the majority of manuscript witnesses. The
Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, edited by Zane C.
Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad (1982), is a modern example of the Majority
Text. Although close to the Received Text, there are a number of
differences and some of these are significant (e.g. John 7:53-8:11; Acts
8:36,37). Furthermore, as no detailed collation of all surviving manuscripts
has taken place, the exact majority text cannot yet be determined; and even
if one day that became possible, the resultant text could only be
provisional and tentative, because the discovery of further manuscripts
might change minority readings to majority readings, or vice versa.
The doctrine of providential preservation, however, teaches that the
Church isand always has beenin possession of the true text of
Scripture.8
In other words, the TBS have adopted a faith-based test for

determining the exact words of Holy Scripture which is the doctrine of
734
providential preservation, however, teaches that the Church isand

always has beenin possession of the true text of Scripture. What the
TBS are stating here is that there is no further examination needed of
extant texts within any of the textual families as we already have the
exact words of the autographs in the printed texts of the Greek
Received Text. In simple terms, it is crystal clear to anyone who reads
with an open mind, that the TBS believe in VPP in the various editions of
the printed Greek Texts of the Textus Receptus! This is very different
from the Life BPC position that only holds to a nebulous and undefined
view that God has fully preserved His Word in the body of manuscripts
(or texts or copies) after the original autographs were lost.9
By contrast, FEBC state that:
The infallible and inerrant words of Scripture are found in the faithfully
preserved Traditional/Majority manuscripts and fully represented in the
Printed and Received Text...that underlies the Reformation Bibles best
represented by the KJV.10
The TBS position, from the deductive and logical analysis above
can only differ from FEBC in one marginal aspect; that they would
change this statement to fully represented in the Printed and Received
Texts, as they state the scope of the Societys Constitution does not
extend to considering the minor variations between the printed editions of
the Textus Receptus. It would also seem logical that the TBS would
probably lean more to the view of FEBC as no doubt it makes more sense
to assume that the KJV translators made the right choices with the greater
evidence before them in determining the true text when comparing what
the TBS say are variations that are not of great significance and rarely
affect the sense11 in the various printed editions of the Received Text.12
Despite Life BPC accusations that FEBC is divisive on this issue,
the reality is that FEBC readily embraces the TBS position as a legitimate
interpretation and state,
FEBC concedes that others can differ with them over the absolute certainty
as regards the underlying texts or words but as long as other VPP and KJV
defenders ...maintain VPP in the lineage of Byzantine/Majority
manuscripts and the Textus Receptus... and deny the Westcott-Hort Text
and also deny the existence of scribal errors, ...slight differences of
opinion over the verbally preserved texts/words among KJV defenders
should remain as non issues....13
735
Life BPC claim that the conviction of VPP, is not held by the
majority of fundamental, Bible-believing institutions, churches and
writers. Notwithstanding, that their distinctives of Reformed
Premillennial Presbyterianism is in a relative minority in these categories
and they do not consider that a problem, a quick survey around the
Fundamentalist world will show how worthless such an observation is.
For instance, in the USA, it is reckoned that the number of independent
Baptist churches is roughly 10,000 and most of these are pro-KJV and
VPP. We will list just a few examples:
(1) Crown College of the Bible and Temple Baptist Church is an
Independent Fundamental Baptist Bible College and Seminary in Powell,
Tennessee with more than 1,000 students. The founder and President, Dr
Clarence Sexton has spoken at many Free Presbyterian Churches in
Northern Ireland and is a close friend of Dr Ian Paisley and have
exchanged pulpits many times.14 The Reformers portraits line the halls of
Temple Baptist Church. In 2007, Dr Sexton gave the opening address to
the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) Annual
Fellowship. 15 His Church, Bible College and Seminary use the KJV
exclusively and clearly state in their Statement of Faith on the
Scriptures that,
We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the
Bible, as it is in truth, the Word of God... (I Thessalonians 2:13). We
believe in verbal, plenary inspiration in the original writings, and Gods
preservation of His pure words to every generation (II Timothy 3:16,
Psalms 12:6-8). The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received
Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original
languages we accept and use; the King James Version of the Bible is the
only English version we accept and use.16
(2) Pensacola Christian College has 4,500 undergraduate students

and has recently appointed Dr Lloyd Streeter as co-pastor of the Campus
Church17 who has published a book fully endorsing VPP in which he
says,
We have no original language manuscripts for the book of Job except those
copied in A.D. 900 by Massorite scribes. That is a gap of approximately
3000 years. Actually, we do not even know the language in which Job was
originally written. Think of it, dear reader 3,000 years with no
manuscripts? How would you know that Job is Gods Word if you had to
depend on early manuscripts? There is ONE way to know and that is by
faith. God said He would preserve His Word and He kept His promise.
736

So it means absolutely nothing that there is a scarcity of Greek
manuscript evidence in the first several centuries of church history. Our
confidence is in the God of the Bible Who said that He would not allow His
words to fall by the wayside never to be known to man again. Early copies
were worn out and destroyed (especially the best ones!) but the Word of
God is indestructible and unalterable. God always saw to it that the best
copies were copied. The Holy Spirit taught Gods people to know and keep
the words of God. Furthermore, ... trustworthiness of the King James
Bible should be looked upon as a winnowing or refining process extending
from Tyndale through 1769. God used such men as Erasmus, Beza,
Stephanus, Tyndale, the translators of the English versions which preceded
the KJV, the translators of the KJV itself, and those who corrected printing
and spelling errors between 1611 and 1769.18
(3) David Cloud runs the Way of Life website ministry which has the
largest list of subscribers and viewers of any Fundamentalist ministry.
Cloud receives 2,500 and more personal letters and e-mails each month.
Hundreds of Independent Baptist Churches are associated with him and
listed in his Directory of Churches.
(4) Singapore has a number of Independent Baptist Churches, listed
in David Clouds Directory that are clearly VPP.19 For instance, Shalom
Baptist Church states, We believe that God preserved His Word in the
Traditional Masoretic and Traditional Greek Text (the Textus Receptus)
and we hold the King James Version which is based on these texts as the
best English translation of the Bible. 20
(5) The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland clearly embrace the
TBS position that all the Words of God have been preserved in the
Received Text of the Textus Receptus editions. Speaking of the WCF,
they disagree with the Life BPC interpretation and state,
Note how the Confession emphasises in all ages. The claim of biblical
criticism is that manuscripts discovered over the past 150 years which were
not used or available to the Church in the preceding 1500 years are more
authentic than the standard text (often called the Received Text) which form
the vast majority of available manuscripts which the Westminster Assembly
spoke of as having been kept pure in all ages. This text is witnessed to by
the general consensus of the Church in each generation. God has preserved
the Scriptures down through the ages for the salvation of men and the
edification and comfort of His church, not buried away secretly but publicly
in the usage of His Church. It is significant that Isaiah 59:21 speaks of the
Churchs continuous possession of the Word, this verse is, as John Owen,
put it, the great charter of the Churchs preservation of truth. Any close
737

consideration of the following verses will show that the providential
preservation taught in relation to the Word of God extends beyond its
doctrines to all of its words. Every word of the Scriptures as originally
given was fully inspired of God and in the same way every word preserved
by God is also fully inspired (See Matt. 5:18; Matt. 24:35; Matt 28:20;
Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; Luke 21:33; 1 Cor 11:23; 1 Pet 1:25; Rev 22:1819).
Any Church that holds fully to the teaching of the Westminster Confession
must recognise that the Bible teaches the full providential preservation of
the text of Scripture. Not least because various parts of the wording and
teaching of the Westminster Standards depend on verses that are only in the
Received Text and have therefore been omitted in most modern versions
(e.g. Matt. 6:13, 1 John 5:7). 21
(6) Dr Ian Paisley is the Joint Chairman of the World Congress of

Fundamentalists and Founder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.
The Rev Dr Ian Paisley MP, in his book My Plea for the Old Sword
(KJV), wrote:
Divine Revelation plus Divine Inspiration plus Divine Preservation equals
the Divine Bible. These all, without exception, cover the whole field of
every Word of God. There is no such thing as verbal Revelation without
verbal Inspiration and there is no such thing as verbal Inspiration without
verbal Preservation. In all cases it is not partial but plenary i.e. full,
complete, perfect.
through Divine Inspiration, must have Divine Preservation in order to be
available to all generations. The verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures
demands the verbal Preservation of the Scriptures. Those who would deny
the need for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as being really
committed to verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God today
then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished.
In such a case any Bible is as good as any other. Hence the multiplication
and continuing changes of perverted English versions of the Bible on the
market today.
Those who believe in a partial preservation are not much better. To say that
God has preserved most of the Original Scriptures but not them all, robs us
of every Word of God. Therefore we cannot live [by His every word, Matt
4:4]. This is but another way to pen-knife Gods every Word.
Those who do not believe that God preserved His Word are really going
down the path of final rejection of that Book of which the Lord Jesus Christ
738

said, The Word of God cannot be broken. Thank God, no potency can
disintegrate this Rock.22
Dr Paisley went on to defend the VPP of Scripture in the original

languages and the KJV from Psalm 12:6-7:
Surely here we have the Doctrine of Divine Preservation divinely revealed.
The preserved Scriptures cannot be lost or caused in any way to perish. As
of the God who uttered them, so we can say, Thou remainest!
It is interesting to note that the new Bibles vary the words of Psalm 12:6-7
and so eliminate the testimony of that verse to the Divine Preservation of
the Scriptures. They insist that the them of verse seven is not a reference
to Gods words but to Gods people and destroy the texts testimony to
the Preservation of Gods Word.
Gods providential preservation of His own Word ensured that the true
Scriptures were not hidden away in the library of the Antichrist nor in a
monastery of Greek Catholic idolatry at the time when Tyndale prepared
his Bible. Faithful and true copies of the originals were at hand for the
Divine Bombshell (Tyndales translation of Gods Holy Word into English)
which would smash the Roman Antichrist. He translated into English the
Preserved Word of God, not the Perverted Word of God.
A return to the Apostolic Gospel comes as a result of Tyndales work. A
return to the Apostate Gospel comes as a result of the translation of Romes
long hidden, perverted text and other such perverted texts in the Modern
Perversions of the Scriptures.
The Authorised Version translated into English the Preserved Word of God
and so preserved for the English speaking peoples of the World, the Word
of the Living God, the only infallible Rule of Faith and Practice.23
It is clear from these quotes that Dr Ian Paisley believes that the
true Scriptures were only preserved in a full, complete, perfect
manner in the true copies of the originals at hand which gave us
Tyndales Version and eventually the Authorised Version. Will Life BPC
denounce now the Joint Chairman of the World Congress of
Fundamentalists, Dr Ian Paisley as a heretic? Will they do this also for
the TBS, Crown College, Dr Clarence Sexton, Way of Life, hundreds (if
not thousands) of KJV-defending churches across the world, and Dr
Lloyd Streeter, co-pastor of the Campus Church at Pensacola Christian
College? Will they issue a statement banning all of these groups from the
premises of Life BPC for their heresy? In accordance with Titus 3:10
and their claim to practise in their Constitution Ecclesiastical separation
from all churches or groups of churches who are doctrinally impure, will
739
Life BPC reject and separate from the TBS, Dr Ian Paisley, the Free
Presbyterians of Ulster and Scotland, Crown College, Pensacola
Christian College, and the World Congress of Fundamentalists for
promoting heresy and allowing heretics into leadership?
It is axiomatic, from all of the evidence presented above, that a new
formulation of an historic doctrine is not necessarily characteristic of
heresy. It is also clear that Life BPC have not even carried out the basic
steps of collating the evidence properly and analysing it objectively. This
was the very evidence that they used to act in a discriminatory,
inconsistent and unbiblical manner in their inflammatory and unjust
action. Unless they retract we can only conclude that they are simply
willing to tolerate any view on preservation, save that of FEBC.
In light of the above evidence, we can only plead that Life BPC
formally retract their visceral and clearly unfounded and unbiblical
accusations against their founding pastor, Dr Timothy Tow and the Board
of Directors of FEBC. Further delays will only compound the great
wrong of these terrible slurs and slanders, which as they themselves
stated, brings no glory to God, and will only discredit the Church of
God24 for the infallible and perfect Scripture warns, For with what
judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it
shall be measured to you again (Matt 7:2).
Questions for Life BPC

These questions which I have modified for the Life BPC context are
based partly on some suggestions raised by Independent Baptist author,
Kent Brandenberg.25
(1) Do you believe it is possible that the underlying text of the KJV
in Hebrew and Greek is an exact 100% copy of the autographs? If not, do
you have a Scriptural framework and any objective textual critical
framework for rejecting so that we all can test your bold assertions?
(2) How can you add or take away from something that isnt settled?
In other words, what difference does Revelation 22:18, 19 make?
(3) How is the Bible considered perfect if there are errors in it? If
the errors arent related to the words, then what difference does verbal
inspiration make? What is the Scriptural basis for errors in the Bible?
(4) Where does the Bible say there would be sixty-six books? If it
doesnt say, then how do we know there are not more or less? What are
740
the reasons that Christianity rejected the Apocrypha and accepted the
book of Revelation?
(5) What is the pre-19th century historic basis for the doctrine of the
errancy of Scripture, that is, the history of assuming that we dont know
what the Words are or that there are errors in Scripture?
(6) What is the historic position on the preservation of Scripture?
(7) What is your developed Scriptural position on the doctrine of
preservation that you have believed and believed before you began
examining textual criticism?
(8) What was Paul telling Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 that was
profitable for doctrine, correction, etc.? If every Word and all of them
was necessary for thoroughly furnishing us to every good work, then how
could we do that without all of them?
(9) When Jesus told us that man shall live by every Word in
Matthew 4:4, should we assume that He meant that we would not have
every Word?
(10) When something passes away like heaven and earth will pass
away, does that mean that it will disappear? If Gods Words are not going
to pass away or jots and tittles are not going to pass away, does that mean
that we are still going to possess them?
(11) Was the Critical Text available for believers from c.1525-1825?
If someone, like BJU believes that this new text is closer to the
autographs are they believing in heresy as their view is also
infectious and divisive?
(12) Does Scripture teach anywhere that man was responsible for
restoring a lost text?
(13) Can you show me physical, tangible evidence that the Ben
Chayyim Hebrew Masoretic and the Scrivener TR are not the same words
as the original manuscripts?
(14) How can a member of Life BPC be confident that prophecies
are being fulfilled literally today, if he does not have all the words of the
Bible available to him?
(15) Where does Scripture say that a miracle is a greater and more
thorough act of God than providence? Is something that God does
providentially less God than it is when God does something
miraculously?
741
(16) Can you prove that all the words of the autographs were not
available to the translators of the KJV as they were consolidated into a
printed edition?
(17) In light of Matthew 5:18, can you provide any evidence that
prior to Erasmus there was no agreement among the true remnant church
as to the preserved text to the degree of jots and tittles having been
preserved? Can you prove that all of the period of time before 1611 all of
the words were not in one place at one time?
(18) Which of the following positions reflect your view?
(i) Every Word of God was inspired and has been preserved and is
available today.
(ii) Every Word of God was inspired, but were not sure that every
Word has been preserved.
(iii) Every Word of God was inspired and has been perfectly
preserved, but were not sure that every Word is available.
(iv) We dont have every Word of God today, and we may never
have had it.
(19) What fundamental doctrine of Scripture and what dangers to
the Church is there from the consequences of believing that God has
perfectly preserved His Words today? Do you believe that doubt in a
perfect Bible is the less dangerous position? How would you prove to a
cult member or a non-believer that you have an infallible, inerrant Bible?
(20) In light of Isaiah 59:21, As for me, this is my covenant with
them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I
have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the
mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith the
LORD, from henceforth and for ever, what words have departed from
the mouth of believers in 2008? When did for ever end? Do you agree
with John Owen who said on his commentary on this passage that it
means the Words of God, shall always continue with the church and
her spiritual seed, such as are born in her, and brought up by her,
throughout all successive ages, and to the end of time; and it may be
observed, that after the conversion of the Jews, to which this prophecy
has a special regard, they shall no more apostatise? Do you agree with
The Pulpit Commentary edited by H D M Spence and Joseph S Exell
whose exposition on this section says, The Spirit will be accompanied
742
with certain words which will be put into the Churchs mouth; and
these words will remain unchanged and pass on from mouth to mouth,
age after age, for ever. The words intended are probably those of the
entire Bibleall Gods revelations (Cheyne)which the Church will
maintain as inspired truth through all ages.
(21) Where are all the extant manuscripts of the New Testament?
How does one look at every single one of them? Has Life BPC elders
ever studied any of them if so, how many?
(22) Do you agree with Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones book, God the
Father, God the Son, when he says that miracles are a sub-category of
providence?
(23) Do Life BPC agree with Rev Tan Eng Boo of Grace BiblePresbyterian Church that We have in our hands the perfect Word of
God. We believe we have the perfect Bible, but not the perfect
version! 26 If so, can they state where this perfect Bible is?
(24) Do Life BPC believe God would providentially lead Samuel to
let none of his words fall to the ground (1 Sam 3:19), yet He did today
as we cannot find some of these Words? Does any Bible version tell us
that God would preserve His words out there somewhere among
thousands of variant readings and that it is up to the scholars, who never
agree with each other and keep changing their minds every few years, to
tell us where the true words of God might be found?
(25) If a member of Life BPC does not have access to all the Words
of God today, will God hold him accountable on the day of judgment for
rejecting and not receiving them (John 12:48) and not keeping His
commandments (Luke 16:10; Rev 22:14)?
(26) Who is preserving the Words of God today God or man?
(27) Can Life BPC identify absolutely all the Words of God today?
Could they explain how they could do this? Rev Charles Seet said at Life
BPC sanctuary in a sermon 27 that The correct reading can be easily
determined by comparing scripture with scripture so this should be a
straightforward task.
(28) In light of 2 Peter 3:2 which say, That ye may be mindful of
the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the
commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour are we
excused of this as we do not have all these words?
743
(29) As faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

(Rom 10:17), how can the members of Life BPC earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 3) if we do not
have all of that faith?
(30) Life BPC stated28 in respect of Matthew 24:35 that The words
of Jesus will continue to be certain, valid and trustworthy even after the
universe ceases to exist. Can a member of Life BPC know today that all
the Words of Jesus are certain, valid and trustworthy if they do not
have them all?
(31) Life BPC stated29 in respect of the words kept pure in all ages
in the Westminster Confession, If they had truly written it with the
intention of proving perfect preservation of Scripture, more would have
been written about it. Can they show us any evidence from the writings
of any of the Westminster Divines to prove that the basis of their
interpretation of this is correct?
(32) In light of the following quote in 1893 for The Evangelist by E
D Morris,30 expert on the Westminster divines, who contributed to Philip
Schaffs History of the Christian Church, do you believe that the oneBible-belief started in the 1970s or the mid-twentieth century?
As a Professor in a Theological Seminary, it has been my duty to make a
special study of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as have I done for
twenty years; and I venture to affirm that no one who is qualified to give an
opinion on the subject, would dare to risk his reputation on the statement
that the Westminster divines ever thought the original manuscripts of
the Bible were distinct from the copies in their possession.
(33) In light of the following quote by Samuel Rutherford, in A Free

Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience, in 1649, do you
believe that we can separate the teaching of Scripture from the actual
Words?
Though the Letter of the Scripture be not the Word alone, yet the Letter
with the true sense and meaning of it, is the Word.... So if ye destroy the
Letter of the Scripture, you do destroy the Scripture; and if you do deny the
Letter, how is it possible that you should attain to the true sense thereof,
when the Sense lies wrapped up in the Letters, and the words thereof?
We must say, we have not the clear and infallible word of God, because the
Scripture comes to our hand, by fallible means, which is a great
inconsequence, for through Scribes, Translators, Grammarians, Printers,
may all err, it followeth not that an [un]-erring providence of him that
744

hath seven eyes, hath not delivered to the Church, the Scriptures
containing the infallible truth of God.
(34) In light of the following quote by Richard Capel, one of the

divines, when he writes (Capels Remains, London, 1658, pp 19-43), do
you agree that God by His providence hath preserved all the words
uncorrupt?
[W]e have the Copies in both languages [Hebrew and Greek], which Copies
vary not from Primitive writings in any matter which may stumble any. This
concerns only the learned, and they know that by consent of all parties, the
most learned on all sides among Christians do shake hands in this, that God
by his providence hath preserved them uncorrupt.... As God committed the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament to the Jews, and did and doth move their
hearts to keep it untainted to this day: So I dare lay it on the same God, that
he in his providence is so with the Church of the Gentiles, that they have
and do preserve the Greek Text uncorrupt, and clear: As for some scrapes
by Transcribers, that comes to no more, than to censure a book to be
corrupt, because of some scrapes in the printing, and tis certain, that what
mistake is in one print, is corrected in another.
Notes
http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm. So desperate are Life
BPC to buttress their misrepresentation of the TBS view that they have resorted
to citing A J Brown, former editorial secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society
(TBS) in a 24-year-old document, Faith and Textual Scholarship, TBS
Quarterly Record (Oct-Dec 1984). They have acted, at best, carelessly in failing
to study the clear statements of the latest Statement of Doctrine of Holy
Scripture by the TBS. This error is compounded when the TBS has rejected the
validity of the statements of A J Brown, as Mr David Larlham, the Assistant
General Secretary of TBS, recently wrote to Dr Jeffrey Khoo of FEBC, we
would suggest that neither you nor the Rev Wong should place any such reliance
upon the comments of Mr Andrew Brown going back around 20 years. David
Cloud lists correspondence from Mr Brown (www.wayoflife.org/articles/
majoritytext.htm) clearly endorsing the Majority Text position in the 1980s, but
he states that Mr Andrew Brown was dismissed from the Trinitarian Bible
Society in 1991.
2
http://www.truth.sg/tbsnonvpp.htm.
3
http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/statement.pdf.
4
Preface, Section 4.
5
Section 6.
6
Note 1, page 6.
7
Note 3, page 6.
1
745

See definition of Majority Text in Word List, 9.
http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/stmtfaith.htm.
10
Editorial, The Burning Bush 12 (2006): 2.
11
A Brief Look at the Textus Receptus in Appendix 3.
12
Indeed, the TBS state in Appendix 2, (footnote 4) that the Society
believes that the latest and best edition is the text reconstructed by F H A
Scrivener in 1894.
13
The Burning Bush 12 (2006): 80.
14
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=31306.
15
http://www.fbfi.org/content/view/61/29.
16
http://thecrowncollege.com/whatwebelieve/.
17
http://www.pcci.edu/CampusChurch/PastorBios.html.
18
Lloyd Streeter, Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Theological
Seminarys Book The Bible Version Debate (LaSalle: First Baptist Church,
2001), 98, 99, 104.
19
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/churchdir/!churches.htm.
20
http://www.shalom-baptist.com.
21
http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Beliefs/AuthorisedVersion.php.
22
Ian R K Paisley, My Plea for the Old Sword: the English Authorised
Version (KJV) (Belfast: Ambassador, 1997), 102-3.
23
Ibid, 106.
24
http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
25
http://www.kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com.
26
http://www.truth.sg/response/pborpv.htm.
27
Rev Charles Seet, The Word that Endures Forever, preached at Life
Bible-Presbyterian Church on October 28, 2007.
28
http://www.lifebpc.com/ourstand/godlypath.htm.
29
Ibid.
30
Prof E D Morris for decades taught the Westminster Confession at Lane
Theological Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio.
8
9
746
66
A BRIEF HISTORY, PURPOSES, AND GOALS OF
THE DEAN BURGON SOCIETY
D A Waite
The Beginning of the Dean Burgon Society (DBS)
The Burden for the King James Bible (KJB)
In 1977 and 1978, I could see the need to have a group of people in
the United States of America (USA) who would stand strongly both for
the KJB and for the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it.
Trying to Work with the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS)
At first, a few of us tried to work with the TBS in England by
beginning a branch in the USA with their permission. Soon, we found out
that we could not be free to carry on this work on our own, as the Lord
might lead us, but had to have everything first approved by TBS in
England before we could speak or write it. We understood that, after a
few months of attempting to work in this way, it was not the way we
should proceed. We finally disassociated ourselves from the TBS and
sought to work on our own in this country.
A Beginning Committee of Three
Early in 1978, as I recall, three of us met together to seek to form an
independent group in the USA. Dr David Otis Fuller of Grand Rapids,
Michigan, Pastor E L Bynum of Lubbock, Texas, and I of Collingswood,
New Jersey, met together in a central place. At that meeting, it was
decided to form an organization in the USA which would defend the KJB
and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words.
Composing the First Draft of the Articles of Faith
I volunteered to compose a first draft of the Articles of Faith,
Operation & Organization of the DBS. Since I was familiar with the
TBS, I used it as the basis for our Articles of Faith, Operation &
Organization, changing it as needed to meet our needs.
747
The Theological Doctrine of the DBS

Though it is without any particular specified church denomination,
the DBS has a strong conservative biblical base. Speaking of the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Bible, the preface of the twelve
divisions of the Articles of Faith states: Acknowledging the Bible to be
the inerrant, infallible, plenarily and verbally inspired Word of God,
among other equally biblical truths, we believe and maintain the
following: . This allows for DBS leaders and members to hold
different beliefs in some areas, yet they must hold to the DBS doctrinal
statement as written.
The Name of the Society
Although different names were mentioned, we chose The Dean
Burgon Society because of the stand taken by Dean John William
Burgon in his battle against the scandalously corrupt Greek Text of
Bishop Westcott and Professor Hort that came out in 1881. We did not
choose this name because Dean Burgon was a member of the Church of
England or because we held to all of his theological doctrines. We chose
it for the following reason which we have placed in the issues of our
Dean Burgon News: The Dean Burgon Society Inc., proudly takes its
name in honor of John William Burgon (1813-1888), the Dean of
Chichester in England, whose tireless and accurate scholarship and
contribution in the area of New Testament Textual Criticism; whose
defense of the Traditional Greek New Testament Text against its many
enemies; and whose firm belief in the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of
the Bible; we believe, have all been unsurpassed either before or since his
time.
Amending the Articles of Faith, Operation & Organization
On Friday and Saturday, November 3 and 4, 1978, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, the DBS was organized. Fifteen pastors and five laymen
were present at the meeting. The first draft of the Articles of Faith,
Operation & Organization was taken up in detail and amended as
needed. This 16-page pamphlet is available upon request by writing the
DBS at P O Box 354, Collingswood, New Jersey 08108, or you can Email DBS@DeanBurgonSociety.org. The specific internet link for these
Articles is as follows: http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS_
Society/articles.htm.
748
The Dean Burgon Society
Of the 20 men present at this organizing meeting, I am the only one

still with the DBS after 32 years. Some of these organizers have left the
DBS for various reasons and some have died. New men have taken their
place in the leadership of the DBS.
The Dean Burgon News
At the organizing meeting of the DBS on November 3-4, 1978, plans
were laid for The Dean Burgon News. This newsletter was to further all
thirteen stated purposes of the DBS (Articles of Faith, Operation &
Organization, pp 6-9).
In the first years of the DBS, The Dean Burgon News (DBSN) was
printed monthly by Pastor E L Bynum of Lubbock, Texas. When he
retired from the DBS, the DBSN was published less frequently,
sometimes only once or twice a year. Beginning with issue #82 in August
2008 to the present, the DBSN has been published in electronic format as
the DBS eNEWS. This is sent all over the world on the computer rather
than through the mail. One of our DBS Vice Presidents, Dr H D
Williams, is the Managing Editor of the DBS eNEWS. He has done an
excellent job in producing this with color and attractiveness. It is now
back to a monthly frequency letting its readers know of the position,
purposes, and plans of our DBS today. You can get a free subscription to
the DBS eNEWS by writing DBS@DeanBurgonSociety.org.
Annual Meetings of the DBS

Past Annual Meetings
The DBS presently holds one annual meeting for two days each
year, on a Wednesday and Thursday, usually in July. The location of the
meeting varies from year to year, based on who invites us. An Executive
Committee meeting is held on Wednesday morning. At the same time, the
DBS Women meet. Wednesday afternoon and evening and all day
Thursday, DBS speakers present their messages. There are usually 15 to
18 speakers, speaking for either 25 or 40 minutes. The speakers are
usually either from the DBS Executive Committee or the DBS Advisory
Council, but on occasion, there are other speakers. The main object of
these messages is In Defense of the Traditional Bible Texts. In recent
years, the meetings have been live-streamed around the world by
connecting to BibleForToday.org at the time of the meetings. Ample time
749
is reserved for questions and answers. Usually, we receive many E-mails

from those listening from the USA and some foreign countries.
The KJBs 400th Anniversary Special Annual Meeting in 2011

On July 27-28, 2011, the DBS commemorated the 400th anniversary
of the publication of the KJB in 1611 AD. All of the messages were
specifically related to some aspect of the KJB. It was held at the Bible
Presbyterian Church in Collingswood, New Jersey, where DBS Advisory
Council Member, Dr Christian Spencer, is pastor. The meeting was
sponsored by the Bible For Today Baptist Church in Collingswood, New
Jersey, where DBS President, Dr D A Waite, is pastor.
The Position of the DBS on the Bible

It is important to know that there is a specific doctrinal position
strongly held by the DBS. There are 12 doctrinal topics that are specified
in our Articles of Faith, Operation & Organization. The 12 doctrinal
topics of the DBS are: (1) The Bible, (2) The Trinity, (3) The Person of
Christ, (4) The Birth of Christ, (5) The Death of Christ, (6) The
Resurrection of Christ, (7) Salvation, (8) Heaven and Hell, (9) Spiritual
Unity, (10) Purity of the Church, (11) Separation, and (12) Creation.
These 12 topics are recorded in full on our DBS website at http://
www.deanburgonsociety.org/DBS_Society/articles.htm.
Our special emphasis is our position on the Bible. For 32 years now,
the following statement, in just four paragraphs, has been the position of
the DBS on the Bible. Read it over carefully.
We believe in the plenary, verbal, Divine inspiration of the sixty-six
canonical books of the Old and the New Testaments (from Genesis to
Revelation) in the original languages, and in their consequent infallibility
Bible uses it, the term inspiration refers to the writings, not the writers
(2 Timothy 3:16-17); the writers are spoken of as being holy men of God
750

and the Traditional Greek Text for the New Testament underlying the King
We believe that the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of the
Scripture.
Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation for help.
Permit me to make some observations on it:

Observation #1: Divine Inspiration Defined. The plenary, verbal,
Divine inspiration of the sixty-six canonical books of the Old and the
New Testaments is restricted to the original languages of Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek. It does not apply to translations made from those
original languages into other languages.
Observation #2: Infallibility And Inerrancy Defined. The technical
terms, infallibility and inerrancy must be restricted to the original
languages. These original language Words and only such Words can
be accurately described as 100% perfect and pure. As such, these two
descriptive nouns can apply only to God Himself and to His Words.
These terms do not refer to translations made from those original
languages into other languages.
Observation #3: The Application of the Terms Infallibility and
Inerrancy. The terms of infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible are
reserved for the original languages. The infallibility and inerrancy of
the Scriptures extends to all matters of which they speak.
Observation #4: The Apocrypha Not Inspired. These books are
not the inspired Word of God in any sense whatsoever. I believe it was
751
a mistake for the Authorized Version to have included the Apocrypha in

their 1611 first edition. I wish they had not done this.
Observation #5: To What Does Inspiration Refer? Inspiration
refers to the writings, not the writers. Some have misapplied this term to
refer to the writers. The DBS Articles are very clear on this subject.
Observation #6: The Process of Inspiration Ceased with the Bibles
Original Writings. Their writings were supernaturally, plenarily, and
verbally inspired, free from any error, infallible, and inerrant, as no other
writings have ever been or ever will be inspired. We have the product
of that process of once-for-all inspiration in the accurate copies of
those inspired Words. The use of given by inspiration of God, Godbreathed, inspired of God, verbally inspired, or inspired when
referring to the KJB or other translations has caused untold confusion in
understanding.
Observation #7: The Verbal Plenary Preservation of the Original
Words. The verbal, plenary, preserved Words which are closest to the
original autographs are the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text for the
Old Testament, and the Traditional Greek Text for the New Testament
underlying the King James Version. These two texts have been
providentially preserved.
Observation #8: The Description of the KJB. The King James
Version (or Authorized Version) of the English Bible is called a true,
faithful, and accurate translation of these two providentially preserved
Texts, which in our time has no equal among all of the other English
Translations. Because the translators did such a fine job in their
translation task, we can say This is the WORD OF GOD in English.
Observation #9: The Value of the Underlying Original Language
Texts. Rather than discarding, or failing to use the underlying original
language Texts of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as some are teaching,
we believe in using these Texts for complete clarity as well as to
compare Scripture with Scripture.
Observation #10: All the Verses Belong in the KJB. The verses
belong because they represent words we believe were in the original
texts of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. No verses should be left out as the
modern versions have done.
Observation #11: Other Renderings Could Be Acceptable. Without
changing the words of the KJB in any way, there might be other
752
renderings from the original languages which could also be acceptable to

us today. Honesty demands such a position since there are three, four,
five or more possible meanings for each Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Word in the Bible. The KJB translators selected at least one of those
meanings, but there are others they could have selected as well.
Observation #12: For Exhaustive Study, Go to the Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek Words Rather Than to Other Translations. In view of many
practices today either to consult other translations or to turn people away
from consulting the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, We urge the
student to return directly to the Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and
the Traditional Received Greek Text rather than to any other translation
for help.
Various Attacks against the Proper Bible Position

The DBS is in our 33rd year of existence. In these 33 years, we have
seen many changes in this Bible battle. It is important to keep in mind at
least three different groups that hold erroneous positions either on the
KJB, on its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, or on Bible
translations generally. In effect, all three of these groups pose an attack
on the proper understanding of the Bible taken by the DBSs position and
on other groups who take a similar position.
The Gnostic Critical Text Position
This position accepts the Gnostic Critical Greek Text of the New
Testament by whatever name it might be called: (1) The Westcott and
Hort Text, (2) the Nestle/Aland Text (NA), (3) the United Bible Societies
Text (UBS) or (4) the Vatican (B) and Sinai (Aleph) manuscripts Text.
These New Testament texts differ from the Words underlying the
KJBs New Testament in over 8,000 places. These places are enumerated
in Dr Jack Moormans book, 8,000 Differences Between the Critical
Greek Text and the Textus Receptus Greek Text (BFT #3084)
Although many of these differences are minor and though some do
not even affect the English translation, there are at least 356 doctrinal
passages where there are serious differences. These passages are listed in
Dr Jack Moormans book, Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers, and the
Authorized Version (BFT #3230).
This view of the underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words
sanctions the use of modern versions which are based on these faulty
753
foundations, including the ASV, the RSV, the NRSV, the NASV, the NIV,
the TEV, and many, many others. This position uses as many as 19
different Old Testament sources to correct the Hebrew Words
underlying the KJB, none of which should be accepted.
The modernists in this group deny the Verbal Plenary Inspiration
(VPI) of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Autographs. All
of them deny the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Apographs underlying the KJB. This
textual and translational position has many other serious errors and
should be rejected. The DBS strongly disagrees with this position.
The So-Called Majority Text Position
This position changes the New Testament Words underlying the
KJB in anywhere from 1,500 to 1,800 places. This text is based on the
faulty research of a Gnostic Critical Greek Text advocate, Herman Von
Soden. He referred to only approximately 414 Greek manuscripts. It is
difficult to see how it could be called a majority Greek text since in
1967 there were 5,255 Greek manuscripts. Presently there are over 5,500
Greek manuscripts. 414 is not a majority of either number.
This position has been refuted soundly by Dr Jack Moorman in his
book Hodges and Farstads Majority Text Refuted (BFT #1617). There is
a second so-called majority text which is called the Robinson and
Pierpont Greek Text. It changes the New Testament Words underlying the
KJB in about as many places as the Hodges and Farstad edition.
The evangelicals in this group affirm the Verbal Plenary Inspiration
(VPI) of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Autographs.
However, most deny the Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) of the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Apographs underlying the
KJB. This textual position is more moderate than the previous position,
but has serious shortcomings and should be avoided.
The Extreme Inspired KJB Position
The chief proponents of this position are Gail Riplinger and Peter
Ruckman.
Mrs Gail Ludwig Latessa Kaleda Riplinger uses, defends, and
recommends the KJB but believes several erroneous things concerning it.
She teaches an extremist, overstated, perverted, and false view of the
KJB that should not be followed. She boasts of 25,000 on her mailing
754
list. Though she has a large following, her position should be condemned
by everyone in the world.
(1) Her Belief in the Verbal Inspiration of the KJB. She wrongly
believes the KJB was given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in
the same manner as the process whereby He gave the original Words of
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to the writers in the Old and New
Testaments.
(2) Her Belief in the Verbal Inspiration of Other Bibles Since Acts 2.
She wrongly believes there were many inspired Bibles produced by the
Holy Spirit after the Day of Pentecost. There is no authority for this to be
found anywhere in the Bible. It is her own false teaching.
(3) Her Belief in the Disuse of All Hebrew and Greek Lexicons. In
her 1,200-page book, Hazardous Materials, she wrongly concludes that
nobody should use any Hebrew or Greek lexicon or dictionary in
studying the Bible. She alleges various failures in the writers of these
lexicons rather than assessing their ability and understanding of the
languages they are defining.
(4) Her Belief in the Inferiority of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
Words Underlying the KJB. She wrongly exalts mans English words in
the translation of the KJB above Gods original Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek Words. As a result, she wrongly throws out the study of the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying the KJB. This is
blasphemy against the God of the Bible! She has reported that some
Christian colleges are now suspending the teaching of the Greek language
used in the New Testament. Her view against the Greek New Testament
and replacing it with the English KJB is in agreement with such
suspension.
Peter Ruckman uses, defends, and recommends the KJB but
believes several erroneous things concerning it. He teaches an extremist,
overstated, perverted, and false view of the KJB that should not be
followed.
(1) His Belief in the Verbal Inspiration of the KJB. He wrongly
believes the KJB was given by the inspiration of God the Holy Spirit in
the same manner as the process whereby He gave the original Words of
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek to the writers in the Old and New
Testaments.
755
(2) His Belief in the Superiority of the KJB over the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Greek Words Underlying the KJB. I know he calls many
parts of the KJB to be advanced revelation. In effect, he teaches that,
since the KJB was a special revelation, he really believes it is superior to
the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek from which it comes. He sides with Gail
Riplinger on this point, though I do not know if he believes in totally
doing away with the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words as she does. It
would not surprise me if he followed the erroneous position of Gail
Riplinger on this point, though he has in the past ordered books from us
by Dean Burgon.
There are those who believe in the inspiration of the KJB and other
translations in some sense. Though some of these people might deny they
are followers either of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger, there are many
pastors, Christian leaders, and Christians generally who use, defend, and
recommend the KJB but refer to it as being inspired or inspired of
God. Do they mean theopneustos (God-breathed) as the original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words were given (2 Tim 3:16)? Or are they
using it in some lesser sense than either Gail Riplinger or Peter Ruckman
use it? In any event, it is very confusing to use the same term for two
different positions. It appears to make these two positions equal to each
other. This is an unscriptural position on the use of inspired or
inspired of God and should be avoided.
There is no indication that any of those in this lesser position want
to reject the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words underlying the KJB or
that they forbid people to check the Hebrew or Greek lexicons and
grammars for more details. If this is true, it is an important difference
between these people and those who follow the positions either of Gail
Riplinger or of Peter Ruckman.
The DBS Leaders Position on the KJB and Other Translations

At the beginning of the DBS, we sought to rally around us those
who stood for and defended the KJB as opposed to the modern versions.
It seemed to us that this was the main battle in the 1970s. However, in
the intervening years to the present, important divisions and distinctions
have arisen among those who stand for and defend the KJB. For this
reason, the DBS leaders formulated and signed their adherence to a clearcut policy that would distinguish them from all others who also use,
756
defend, and hold to the KJB. Though our position is misunderstood by

some, and even despised by others, we believe it to be sound and biblical.
Because of the confusion of understanding caused by using the same
terms of inspire, inspired, or inspiration for both the original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words and for translations such as the KJB,
as of 2010, all of the DBS leaders on both the Executive Committee and
the Advisory Council decided to make a clear position on this subject. In
our Annual DBS Questionnaire, all of the Executive Committee members
and all of the Advisory Council members state in writing that they will
use the following five terms: given by inspiration of God, Godbreathed, inspired of God, verbally inspired, or inspired,
exclusively for the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words and the
verbal, plenary, preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that
underlie the KJB.
Each of our DBS leaders has affirmed that they will not use any of
these preceding five terms to anyone, at any time, in any way, at any
place to refer to the words of the KJB or any other translation, because
they are in full agreement that to do so is not biblical. They believe this
position is consistent with our DBS Articles and other DBS documents.
As I have said above, these words are part of the DBS Annual
Questionnaire that all of the DBS leaders must sign each year.
The present officers of the DBS are as follows: Dr D A Waite
(President), Dr Robert J Barnett (Vice President), Dr H D Williams (Vice
President), Dr Kirk DiVietro (Secretary), Mr Daniel S Waite (Treasurer).
The members of the DBS Executive Committee are as follows: Dr
Robert J Barnett, Dr David C Bennett, Dr Clinton Branine, Dr David
Brown, Dr Edwin E DeWitt, Dr Kirk DiVietro, Dr Bob Doom, Pastor
Denis Gibson, Mr Ted Grasser, Pastor J David Hollowood, Dr Michael
Monte, Dr Jack A Moorman, Mr Douglas O Nielsen, Mr Mark T Reno,
Mr Paul Ramnarine, Mr Daniel Waite, Dr D A Waite, Dr H D Williams.
The members of the DBS Advisory Council are as follows: Col Jose
Pedro Almeida, Pastor Ralph W Brown, Mr James Grumblatt, Mr
Stephen Hollowood, Dr Don Jasmin, Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Missionary Shane
Rice, Dr Edward R Smith, Dr Phil Stringer, Pastor Kenneth Rainey, Mr
Rob Winograd, Dr Stephen Zeinner.
757
The Important Role of the DBS in Future Days

With Gods help, direction, and blessings, the DBS will seek to
continue in its 33rd year in an even better manner than it has done in its
previous 32 years. Because of its firm position on the KJB and the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it, and its position on
Bible translations generally, I am certain that it will continue to be
attacked by those who differ with us in these areas.
It is also true that many who are uninformed about these areas and
who have open minds as to the truth will change their minds from what
they have been wrongly taught and join us in our biblical position in
these important matters that concern the Bible. Here are some of the ways
that the DBS can get out its message in the present and future.
Future Role of the DBSs Many Books That Are Available
I am one of those who was wrongly taught, as a student for five
years at the Dallas Theological Seminary, to follow the false Gnostic
Critical Greek Text of Westcott and Hort. I held that position for 20 years
because I knew none other position. I finally changed this false position
based on the facts that I read in various books. For the last 40 years, I
have stood for the KJB and the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that
underlie it. One of the reasons why I came to the truth about the Bible
was the reading of some of Dean Burgons books. I went to the Princeton
University library in Princeton, New Jersey, took out copies of all five of
Dean Burgons books mentioned below. I then copied each of them. After
that, the DBS has been able to publish these books and make them
available for all to read.
The DBS has published five books by Dean John William Burgon:
(1) The Revision Revised (BFT #611), (2) The Last Twelve Verses of
Mark (BFT #1139), (3) The Traditional Text (BFT #1159), (4) The
Causes of Corruption (BFT #1160), (5) Inspiration and Interpretation
(BFT #1220).
There are more than 1,000 other titles available in defense of the
KJB and its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words. These titles
are available upon request by writing to the DBS through its website at
DeanBurgonSociety.org.
758
Future Role of the DBSs Monthly DBS eNEWS

This monthly tool is being greatly used by the Lord. It is sent
through the E-mail around the world. It is prepared each month by the
skilled Managing Editor, Dr H D Williams, one of our DBS Vice
Presidents. If you believe in our cause and want to help us spread these
truths, please send us an E-mail with your E-mail address and regular
address and tell us that you would like to receive this DBS eNEWS every
time it is published. We must get our message out all around the world,
and this excellent DBS eNEWS is one of the best ways of doing this.
Future Role of the DBSs Internet Audio and Video Outreach
Through the skill and help of Daniel Waite, our DBS treasurer, we
have been able to video record, stream, and post many of our audio and
video messages on the Internet for others to hear and see. This phase of
the DBS outreach is growing rapidly. The messages are put on
SermonAudio.com which is heard all over the world. Though this is just a
rather recent program, for example, for the month of July 2010, the DBS
had the following statistics: (1) Audio Messages: As of July, 2010, there
were 1,089 MP3 messages downloaded. There have been a total of
45,036 MP3 messages downloaded in all. (2) Video Messages: As of July,
2010, there were 2,780 videos downloaded. There have been a total of
27,395 videos downloaded in all. (3) Internet Messages. As of July, 2010,
there were a total of 411 different messages on the Internet that can be
listened to 24 hours a day and seven days a week.
Future Role and Outreach of the DBS Ministry in the USA
and Around the World
During July 2010, at least one of our messages was downloaded in
all 50 states of the United States. In the same month, at least one of our
messages was downloaded in a total of 47 foreign countries. Please
continue to pray for Gods leading in the entire ministry of the DBS
around the world!
759
PART VI
Homilia
760
67
WHY ONLY KJV?
Jeffrey Khoo
Introduction
The Lord has not only inspired His Holy Wordabsolutely perfect
and completely without errorthrough His prophets and apostles during
biblical times, He has also preserved it for His people down through the
ages. There is no single time in history that the church did not have the
Word of God. Although originally written in Hebrew and Greek, the Lord
has raised faithful men to translate His Word into English so that we may
know Him and make Him known.
Now in terms of English Bibles, there are at least half a dozen
English versions of the Bible to choose frombesides the KJV, you have
the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, TEV, TLB, NEB, CEV etc. Can all these
versions without exception be regarded as the Word of God? Imprinted
on the front cover in all these versions are the words Holy Bible. Now
the question we want to ask is: With so many modern versions available
to us, why do we only use the KJV? Some of you may not be using the
KJV. For non-KJV users you must ask yourself: Is the English version I
am using the Word of God? How can I know whether my English Bible is
Gods Word? Ask these 2 questions and put your version to the test: (1)
Does it faithfully and accurately translate the original Hebrew and Greek
Bible? and (2) Does it promote or demote our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ?
For our discussion, let us put 3 modern versions to the test,
comparing them with the KJV. We will see how these popular versions
(1) are unreliable translations of the Bible, and (2) have demoted the
person and work of Christ. We will also see how the KJV is reliable and
accurate in its translation of Gods Word.
761
The TEV or GNB and the Blood of Christ

How may a sinner be cleansed of sin? Only by the blood of Jesus
Christ shed for us on the cross. For without the shedding of blood there
is no remission (Heb 9:22). We are redeemed by the precious blood of
Christ (1 Pet 1:19).
Yet the TEV (or Good News Bible) replaced the word blood with
death, or sacrifice. This has occurred in these 10 places in the NT
(Acts 20:28; Rom 3:25, 5:9; Eph 1:7, 2:13; Col 1:14, 20; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev
1:5, 5:9).
What is the problem with this? (1) The TEV has changed the
Word of God. The word for blood found in all the above occurrences
with reference to the blood of Christ is the Greek haima (English:
haemoblood). The word for death is a totally different word in the
Greekthanatos (English: euthanasialiterally good death; or mercy
killing). By rendering the word haima as death instead of its actual
meaning blood, the TEV has changed the Word of God. A translation
must be a translation. You cannot in translating change the meaning of
the original word. When you read your English Bible, you want to be sure
that you are reading in English what the original Greek and Hebrew say.
But the TEV prevents you from doing that. (2) The TEV has twisted the
doctrine of the atoning work of Christ. It is important for us to
understand that we are not simply saved by the death of Christ, but the
death of Christ which involves the shedding of His precious blood. If
Jesus were to die by drowning or had gone to the gallows (death by being
hung on a rope or noose) without shedding of blood, His death would not
have saved us. For without the shedding of blood is no remission. The
blood is very important. There is a fountain filled with blood, drawn
from Immanuels veins, and sinner plunged beneath that flood, lose all
their guilty stains. There is power in the blood of Jesus Christ. So by
mistranslating the word blood, the TEV has robbed us of the significance
of the blood of Christ for our salvation.
The NIV and the Eternal Generation of Christ

The eternal generation of the second person of the Holy Trinity (i.e.
Jesus is the eternally begotten Son of God) is an important doctrine of the
Christian Faith. The 4th century Athanasian and Nicene Creeds state that
Jesus is both Son and God only-begotten, . . . of the Father before all the
762
Why Only KJV?
ages. The Westminster Confession of Faith likewise followed the

ancient creeds in describing the relationship that exists within the
Godhead: In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons, of one
substance, power and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the
Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the
Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally
proceeding from the Father and the Son (II.3).
All 3 ancient creeds describe Christ as only begotten, or eternally
begotten. Now you know that every doctrine must be based on the Bible.
Where in the Bible do we find Jesus being described as only begotten
Son of God? If you have the KJV you will find it in John 1:14, and 3:16.
But if you are using the NIV, you will have a hard time finding this
doctrine in the Bible. The term only begotten with reference to Christ
has been conveniently removed by the NIV. It mistranslates the Greek
monogenes as one and only. Problem is monogenes does not just mean
one and only. The Greek monogenes comes from 2 words: monos
meaning only and gennao meaning to beget or to generate. The
KJV translates it literally and accurately as only begotten.
Do you now see why we as Bible-Presbyterians cannot use the NIV?
The WCF teaches according to the Scriptures that Jesus the Son is
eternally begotten of the Father. Now if I were to teach a class on the
WCF, we come to this point on the eternal generation of the Son, and one
of you were to ask me this very good question: In which verse of the
Bible is Jesus described as the only begotten Son of God? If I have the
NIV as my Bible, I will no Biblical proof. The NIV has removed this
important doctrine of the person of Christ from the Scriptures. It has
subtracted from Gods Word; a very dangerous thing to do (Rev 22:19).
That is why we cannot trust the NIV. Why? Because instead of telling us
what God says, it tells us what man thinks God is saying. The NIV
becomes an interpretation, and not translation of the Bible.
The RSV and the Virgin Birth of Christ

The precious prophecy of the Virgin Birth of Christ is found in Isa
7:14. The incarnation demands an extraordinary birth. This is indicated
by the word sign in v14. The virgin birth was to be a miraculous sign.
But the RSV renders the Hebrew almah as young woman. This
does violence to the text. How can it be a sign when it is a young
763
woman who conceives? It is a God-given miracle only if a virgin

conceives. Moreover, the angel Gabriel quoting Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23
translates the Hebrew word almah with the Greek parthenos which in no
uncertain terms means virgin. So, multiple choice question: Which
translator would you trust: (a) RSV or (b) Gabriel? If you answer (a) you
get a big zero, if you choose (b) A+. Matt 1:18, and 25 tell us very clearly
and emphatically that Mary was a virgin from the time she conceived
Jesus till the time she gave birth to Hima virgin conception and a virgin
birth. The RSV has not only (1) corrupted the Word of God by making
the prophecy of Isa 7:14 non-miraculous, it has also (2) attacked the
virgin birth of Christ.
Rabbi Israel Bettan, professor of Hebrew Union College, was asked
of his opinion of the RSV. He said, The Revised Standard Version is not
a faithful translation, and in some places the revisers do violence to the
original Hebrew. It is a good book on the Bible, but it is not the Bible.
When asked to compare the King James Version with various
translations, the rabbi said that of the English versions mentioned the
King James Version was, in his opinion, the most faithful to the original.
Conclusion
The KJV is accurate in its translation of the Holy Scriptures, and
faithful in exalting the Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot say the same for the
TEV, NIV, and RSV. At various points they have corrupted the Word of
God, and attacked the person of Jesus Christ. How can we use and
promote these modernistic versions?
We thank the Lord for the good old versionthe KJV. Let us stick
to it, for we have full confidence that when we read it, we are reading the
Word of God. And it is only when we read the Word of God in its purity
and accuracy, not a diluted or corrupted version, that God will bless and
stir our hearts to greater heights of spirituality and service.
764
68
NO PERFECTLY PRESERVED WORD OF GOD
TODAY?
Tan Kian Sing
In Ephesians 4:14, the Apostle Paul warns believers, That we
henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness,
whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
J C Ryle wrote, False doctrine does not meet men face to face, and
proclaim that it is false. It does not blow a trumpet before it, and
endeavour openly to turn us away from the truth as it is in Jesus. It does
not come before men in broad daylight and summon them to surrender. It
approaches us secretly, quietly, insidiously, plausibly, and in such a way
as to disarm mans suspicion, and throw him off his guard. It is the wolf
in sheeps clothing, and Satan in the garb of an angel of light, who have
always proved the most dangerous foes of the Church (J C Ryle,
Warnings to the Churches, 56).
In the gospel according to Matthew Chapter 24, the Lord Jesus
taught the disciples how to look out for the signs of His coming, and of
the end of the world. And one very common warning given by the Lord is
to watch out for deception. In Matthew 24:4-5, the Lord warns, Take
heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying,
I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Again in Matthew 24:11, the Lord
warns, And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And
then in Matthew 24:24, He warns, For there shall arise false Christs, and
false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if
it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Let us take heed of the warnings of the Lord and of the Apostle
concerning the deception of the last days. Paul says, Be no more
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine,
by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive. Children are very gullible. They are easily tricked into
765
believing lies. Are we like spiritual children and therefore easily deceived
and carried away by every wind of doctrine?
To avoid being easily tossed to and fro by the trickery of men, we
need to build ourselves up in the faith. We need to study the Word of God
diligently, faithfully and prayerfully that we will not yield to the cunning
craftiness of the father of lies.
Dear Reader, do you search the Scriptures daily and receive the truth
with all readiness of mind (Acts 17:11)? Do you humbly and obediently
respond to Gods commandments with Yes, Lord (Mk 7:28), or do you
challenge cunningly, like the serpent, Yea, hath God said (Gen 3:1)? Do
you treasure the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word?
Consider the statement on the infallibility and inerrancy of Holy
Scriptures by Dean Burgon of Oxford: The Bible is none other than the
voice of Him that sitteth upon the throne. Every book of it, every chapter
of it, every verse of it, every word of it, every syllable of it, every letter of
it, is the direct utterance of the Most High. The Bible is none other than
the Word of God, not some part of it more, some part of it less, but all
alike the utterance of Him that sitteth upon the throne, faultless, unerring,
supreme. How do you regard the Word of God? Do you believe that God
is exceedingly powerful and able to perfectly preserve His inspired Word
all intact in every age? Do we not believe in the literal six-day creation,
the world-wide flood in the days of Noah, the virgin birth of Christ, His
bodily resurrection and ascension, the rapture of believers when Christ
comes again? It is with this same simple faith that we believe in the
perfect preservation of the Holy Scripture till today!
You must read A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal
Plenary Preservation by Miss Carol Lee (Lecturer in Christian
Education at the FEBC) in the July 2005 issue of The Burning Bush.
Sister Carol writes: Just as I believe by faith that God created out of
nothing and that He created over a literal six-day period because the
Word of God says so (no matter what the scientists or the science text
books say!), I believe by faith that God can and has preserved His words
for us because the Word of God says so (no matter what the textual
critics, scholarly linguists, commentators, etc may say!).
Just as much have been written against the six-day creation (and
the other miracles in the Bible), much have also been (and will continue
to be) written against the verbal, plenary preservation of the Word of
God.
766
No Perfectly Preserved Word of God Today?
But, finally, it is not what the experts or godly men say but what
Gods Word says. It is not what I can see with my eyes and touch with my
hands, it is what is revealed to me (and you) in Gods Word.
The Word of God is truth. But in the last days, let us be aware of
cunning men who change the truth of God into a lie insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. But God forbid: yea, let
God be true, but every man a liar (Rom 3:4).
God is perfect, and He has preserved His truth providentially down
through the ages in the copies of the writings perfectly so that we today
still have the perfect Word of God which converts our soul. If we reject
the doctrine of perfect preservation, then we do not have the inspired,
infallible and inerrant Word of God intact. So, beware of certain
deception today which proclaims that we cannot accept with simple faith
that we still have the Word of God that is perfect, infallible and inerrant.
The psalmist says in Psalm 19 that the Word of God is perfect, sure, right,
pure, clean, and true. Do we say Amen, Amen and Amen?
Yes, the Word of God is perfect. The Word of God is truth. It is
therefore the power unto perfect salvation in a perfect God. It is the
perfect Word of God that converts our souls unto salvation in Jesus
Christ. And so let us be bold to speak the perfect word of truth. Paul tells
us this is what we are to do in Ephesians 4:15, speaking the truth in
love. Are we doing our part in the ministry by speaking the gospel of
truth in love?
What is the gospel of truth? It is the gospel which tells us of the love
of God for sinners like you and me. The Bible tells us that For God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God loves
us and wants us to be with Him forever and ever. But because of sin in us,
we cannot be with God. But God has His way. His way is to wash away
our sins with the blood of His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. And so if
you believe that you are a sinner, and you need to be washed in the blood
of Jesus Christ, His blood washes you clean so that you can be with God
forever in eternity. Do you recognise that you are a sinner? Do you
believe in the Lord Jesus Christ that He is the Son of God who died by
shedding His blood to wash away your sins? Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved.
767
69
THE UNFINISHED COMMISSION
(MATT 28:18-20)
Timothy Tow
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen (Matt
28:1820).
When Sun Yat-Sen, Father of the Chinese Republic, toppled the

Manchu regime in 1911 and became its president, he called on his
followers: The Revolution is not yet finished. Let comrades struggle on
(
). The Great Commission, which our
Lord gave to the Church 2,000 years ago, is an Unfinished Commission.
There remains much land to be conquered, and untold millions have yet
to hear the Gospel. With the Return of our Saviour looming nearer each
day, this Unfinished Commission must be accelerated. This is mandated
to us in the Olivet discourse, And this gospel of the kingdom shall be
preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall
the end come (Matt 24:14). What have you and I done to speed this
Unfinished Task? We must confess we have done very little. Remember
therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works;
or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out
of his place, except thou repent (Rev 2:5). If we do not repent from our
Laodicean lukewarmness to serve the Lord fervently, God will give our
candlestick to another that will fulfil His purpose. And has not our Lord
given it to the Korean Church that has sent thousands of her sons and
daughters to 120 countries in the world? And if it is true there is a
Chinese restaurant wherever you go in the world, it is also true wherever
you go in the world there is a Korean church.
Despite our cold-heartedness, He Himself will bring it to fruition.
And though the Great Commission is unfinished, His power over heaven
768
The Unfinished Commission (Matt 28:18-20)
and earth and His presence with His devout disciples will finish it. We
believe in a sovereign God.
Now, the Unfinished Commission is a full-four Commission. Many
works in the Name of the Lord by para-church organisations stress one or
two points, but it is a full-four Commission. It is:
(1) Go! This is the Missions emphasis.
(2) Teach (matheteusate), ie, to make disciples. This is the Evangelistic
emphasis.
(3) Baptise. This is the Church Planting emphasis.
(4) Teach (didaskontes). This is the Indoctrination emphasis.
When we diligently carry out these four points of the Unfinished
Commission, we will be attended with divine power and blessed with His
holy presence. All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. . . .
and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. How often
the Great Commission is misquoted, leaving out the all-pervasive power
of God in us, around us and behind us to thrust us forward. No wonder
the little headway we make in our own strength.
I
The Unfinished Commission begins with Go. Notice these are the
first two letters that spell Gospel. The Gospel must be on the Go.
Missions is the First Commandment to the Church. This is clearly
exemplified in the Acts of the Apostles. And what the Apostles did for the
early Church becomes our infallible pattern. Paul says, Be ye followers
of me, even as I also am of Christ (1 Cor 11:1).
Let us learn a lesson from the earliest churches. The church in
Jerusalem was the first to be founded. It began in AD 33 with Pentecost,
Though it continued for a full year in the Apostles doctrine it was not
until a great persecution came upon it and scattered it abroad, that the
disciples went everywhere preaching the Word (Acts 8:4).
Some of those scattered abroad travelled as far as Antioch. They
preached to the Jews but others to Grecians and a great multitude
believed. This Antioch Church drew the attention of Jerusalem which
sent Barnabas to exhort them. To add more power to the Church,
Barnabas departed to Tarsus to bring Saul in. Now, as the leaders of
Antioch prayed, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul
769
for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and
prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away (Acts 13:23). Thus was opened officially the Door of Foreign Missions. The pattern
for us to follow between Jerusalem and Antioch is the latter one. Go with
the Gospel is indeed the First Commandment to the Church.
Now, I come as one representing the mission field. My roots run
deep to the year 1859 when my great-grandfather was converted in
Swatow, South China. He was saved after William Chalmer Burns, Scots
missionary sent by the English Presbyterian Mission. My greatgrandfather became the first Swatow pastor in 1882. He gave his
daughter to my grandfather because he also was a pastor. My father who
became a doctor trained by the English Presbyterian Mission Hospital,
was an elder. And now, me, whom the Lord has graciously accepted from
my mothers womb that I should follow in their steps.
My theological roots also reach back to China. I studied under Dr
Chia Yu-Ming, ICCC Vice-president for China and Dr A B Dodd,
missionary of the Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions.
From China, the Lord transplanted me to Faith Seminary, Wilmington,
Delaware. After I graduated in 1950, I was ordained by the hands of the
Philadelphia Presbytery at the Second Congress of the ICCC in Geneva. I
returned to Singapore where I was called by my Mother Church to start
an English Service.
In order to separate from our Mother Church which was linked to
the National Council and the World Council of Churches, we established
the Life Bible-Presbyterian Church. Rev Dr K C Quek, then an elder,
stood firmly with me.
Now, in the matter of missions, we did not have a Mission Board to
guide us. Our young, inexperienced Church, was our Mission Board. The
four walls of our little church, with a congregation of 50, could not
contain us. We went everywhere preaching the Gospel, especially to next
door Malaysia. In four years we founded a station in South Malaysia, and
in seven years we established two branch churches in Singapore. By
Gods grace, Life Church has grown today to 48 churches and institutions
(such as Far Eastern Bible College) all over Southeast Asia, with a dozen
missionaries. This does not include the branch churches extended
churches.
770
We have no overall mission board. Each B-P Church is its own

mission board. The B-P Churches of Singapore, though now each on its
own after our split in 1988, has become a missionary movement that has
encircled the earth: in Southeast Asia, Burma, India, Pakistan, East and
West Africa, England, Canada, Saipan, China, Australia. This is the
Lords doing. Without a mission board each church handles its own
accounts, so the cost of running missions is nil.
As to financial support there is not the leniency of the American
government which allows deduction for Income Tax. Ours is pure giving,
after paying all the taxes. A good number pay their tithes and some much
more above the sacred tenth. And when others outside our church are
touched by the good reports of our missionaries, they channel their gifts
to us. I say all this as a testimony to the Lords blessing on our home
grown missionary movement.
But the pastor himself must be the ever outgoing one. Like the
Israeli commanders, the generals and colonels must be prepared to lead at
the forefront.
Furthermore, we encourage the formation of laymens missionary
societies, so that young people are attracted to mission trips on their own.
Out of these trips have gathered smaller groups who go out at regular
intervals to speak at childrens and youth meetings, and sometimes at
church services. This quickens the growth of young churches in the
mission fields. Insofar as Life Church is concerned, our Missions
Fellowship publishes its own literature and runs its own accounts.
II
The second point in the Unfinished Commission is the need to make
disciples, to evangelise. This the pastor must emphasise and apply in his
weekly sermon. The pastor must be a soul winner. He must make every
effort to hold evangelistic meetings. The dissemination of Gospel tracts is
a silent auxiliary to evangelism. Some of these from his own pen add a
personal touch. The Sunday School and childrens ministry must also be
geared to the saving of souls. The members added to the church by
baptism each year is a barometer of its growth.
Soul-saving is also the main task of our missionaries. The failure of
missionaries is their lack in winning souls. Hence the quick resignations
from the fields, or if they hang on, its a chore and a job, not a joy.
771
Missionaries of this calibre are quick to assert their rights but slow to
perform their duty.
We have a most outstanding example of a missionary. A graduate of
Far Eastern Bible College, he is sent by my brothers church, Calvary B-P
Church, to the island of Saipan, former Japanese territory in the South
Pacific now under American mandate. For six years he has had a most
illustrious ministry to the garment sewers, mostly women from mainland
China. With a vigorous emphasis on repentance from sin and faith in the
Lord Jesus Christ, he has baptised 600 in six years. His converts are born
again in tears of repentance. Though we do not expect every missionary
to measure up to him, he has set the pace for others to follow, to the glory
of God.
A collateral in the advancing of missions is the support of nationals.
These are chosen from foreign graduates of Far Eastern Bible College.
For example, Rev Robert Thawn Luai, graduate from an Indian Bible
College, came for a semesters refresher course at FEBC. Having proven
his worth as leader of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Burma, we
supported his work by building a four-storey Bible College, costing half a
million. Nearly a hundred have graduated from this College since 1987.
Many of the graduates have become pastors who have added to the
growth of his denomination, from 22 to 55 churches.
We have supported several other national leaders and are pleased
with their steady progress, not only in Burma but also in Indonesia and
Malaysia. With their natural fluency in the vernacular they have instant
access to the hearts of their own people. This method of missionary work
is most cost-effective.
III
The third point in the Unfinished Commission is baptism, which is
missed out by para-church organisations. Calvin defines a Church to be
one that preaches the Word regularly on the Lords Day and that
administers baptism and the Lords Supper. This is the foundation of the
local church.
It is important for believers to be baptised and be joined to the local
church. And it is this sacrament and the Lords Supper that builds it up to
be a branch of the universal Church. Being baptised as a member, he has
obligations to fulfil. He not only attends church regularly according to
772
Hebrews 10:25, but also gives of his substance to support the work of the
Church. The tithe is the test.
When Life Church was branching out to build a new church, we did
not rely on mans method of raising funds by jumble sales, garage sales,
fun fairs, concerts, etc. We preached tithing and free-will offerings. One
weapon, very effective, is interest-free loans.
Baptism is normally given to the catechumens who attend catechism
classes for an extended period. To those who receive Christ on sick beds,
it must not be delayed. Once baptised the family which often is nonChristian, will submit to the Lord. The power of baptism over heathens is
to be experienced by western pastors.
Evangelism and baptism is the only way to solid church growth. Not
by the display of charismatic gifts, the slaying of spirits, and speaking in
tongues. Nor social programmes catering to the flesh. But by the slow but
steady process of winning them to the Lord, one by one.
IV
The fourth point of the Unfinished Commission is Teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. This is where
full indoctrination comes in. Although the Sunday School is a powerful
auxiliary to imparting Scripture knowledge to members, we need the
Bible College or Seminary to train pastors, teachers, and missionaries.
The secret of growth of the Bible-Presbyterian Church in Singapore is the
Far Eastern Bible College, founded 1962. Over 350 have come out of its
classrooms and many scores have been ordained who are now serving in
many parts of the world.
Our students have also to be trained to contend for the faith which
was once delivered unto the saints. Being in the 20th century Reformation
Movement, we have taken a stand against the many isms that try to
undermine the Church: liberalism, modernism, neo-evangelicalism,
charismatism, ECTism (Evangelicals and Catholics Together), the total
denial of the 16th century Reformation.
There is now a concerted attack also on the Bible. The hundred
versions of the English Bible, beginning with the Revised Version of
1881, have swarmed out of the Westcott and Hort Pandora Box, so that
our vision of Truth is blurred. For a century a conspiracy of silence on the
evil character of the two masquerading angels of light in textual criticism
773
have prevailed. Faith Seminary and Dallas Seminary, for example, had
sheepishly bowed to their dictates. In Faith Seminary, I was taught all that
Westcott and Hort had revised of the beloved King James Bible was
Gospel Truth. Ten thousand alterations and deletions were accepted by us
students, such as the passage of Jesus pardoning the woman taken in
adultery, the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Johannine comma1 John
5:7-8. These were declared later interpolations. As much as the
equivalent of 1 and 2 Peter were scissored.
But now the true colours of these so-called Greek experts are
revealed, the best part of it all, by the sons of Westcott and Hort. Do you
know that Westcott and Hort were liberals and modernists of the deepest
dye? They detested the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of the
Scriptures, denied the Virgin Birth of Christ, His Blood atonement and
resurrection. They derisively declared the Creation, Temptation and Fall
to be myths. They were secret worshippers of Mary. They were friends of
Darwin, Freud (called a Fraud by The Straits Times) and Carl Jung, all
enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Westcott founded the Hermes Club at Cambridge, which was
reputed to be a homosexual club. He branched into the Ghost Club with
Hort and others. Scoffers called it the Bogey Club. Bogey means Devil.
They practised necromancy, ie, communicating with the dead, which is
abominable to the Lord (Deut 18:11,12).
They were the architects of revision of the KJB, but where is the
Revised Version of 1881 now? It died a diseased death. Every tree that
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire (Matt
7:19). Now, the hundred new versions that have swarmed out of Westcott
and Hort are emanations from their corrupt text, in one way or another.
When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD
shall lift up a standard against him (Isa 59:19). While God has used Dr
Carl McIntire to raise the ICCC Standard, there was a fellow student of
his in the early days of the founding of Westminster. He was McIntires
friend and his name is Edward F Hills (ThD, Harvard). He took a brave
stand against Westcott and Hort. Before him was David Otis Fuller. At
one of the ICCC Congresses I heard Dr Fullers impassioned appeal to
stand up for the KJB. Then arose Dr D A Waite (ThD, PhD), president of
the Dean Burgon Society, who testifies how when a student at Dallas he
was as much taken in as when I was in Faith Seminary. Following him is
774
raised up another, David W Cloud, with his O Timothy monthly. Though

G A Riplinger has been questioned for accuracy here or there in the
exposure of Westcott and Hort in her book New Age Versions, she has
done yeoman service in ripping off the masks of Westcott and Hort
(Riplingers book has sold 100,000 copies). Last but not least is my
brother, Dr S H Tow, whose latest defence of the King James Bible,
Beyond Versions, is just off the press and to him is added the full weight
of FEBCs faculty. (Last but not least is the Resolution on the Bible by
the International Council of Christian Churches at her 50th Anniversary
Meeting in Amsterdam, August 11-15, 1998, supporting the KJB against
the hundred versions.)
Conclusion
The Unfinished Commission is encumbered with so many wiles of
the Devil, especially in Satans last attack on His Holy Word. Yea, truth
faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the
LORD saw it, and it displeased him that there was no judgment. And he
saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor:
therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it
sustained him (Isa 59:15,16). Truth must prevail! For we can do
nothing against the truth, but for the truth (2 Cor 13:8).
The words of Sun Yat-Sen, Father of the Chinese Republic, that the
Revolution he led to topple the Manchus was unfinished, and comrades
must continue to struggle on reminds us that the Great Commission of
our Lord Jesus Christ is also far from finished. Let us go forward to carry
out its fourfold programme of Missions, Evangelism, Church planting,
and full theological indoctrination with increasing acceleration until our
Lord comes again. Even so, Come Lord Jesus.
We are in the closing chapter of the 20th century Reformation. In no
time we will enter the new millennium, and will there be a 21st century
Reformation?
775
70
WILL OUR B-P SONS DEFEND THE FAITH?
Jeffrey Khoo
Will Our Sons Defend the Faith? was the title of a good book the
Rev Dan Ebert III wrote and published by the Far Eastern Bible College
in 1999. There is a real need today for Protestant sons to know the
Historic Christian Faith, not just doctrinally but also polemically, in the
spirit of Jude 3, Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of
the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort
you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints.
How we thank God for the 16th Century Protestant Reformation!
How we thank God for the brave and godly servants like Luther and
Calvin whom the Lord had raised up to defend the Faith. Without the
Light of the Reformation, we today would still be in Roman Catholic
darkness and bondage.
Reformation is unending and ever continuing. We remember the 20th
Century Reformation Movement under Dr Carl McIntire. The BiblePresbyterian (B-P) Church and all faithful fundamentalists fought hard
and well against modernism, ecumenism, and neo-evangelicalism. It was
a battle for the Bible, and the battle was fought and won. The doctrine of
Verbal Plenary Inspiration (VPI) has become the orthodox expression of
our belief in a totally inerrant and infallible Scripture.
The battle for the Bible continues into the 21st century. Now the
battle concerns not just the doctrine of VPI, but also Verbal Plenary
Preservation (VPP) of the Holy Scriptures. So-called evangelicals and
fundamentalists today are denying that the Church has in her
possession a perfect Bible. They claim that the Bible was only infallible
and inerrant in the past when it was first given, but no longer infallible
and inerrant today. God has inspired His words perfectly, but did not
preserve His words likewise. They teach that Christians do not have all of
Gods words today, and even if they do, they cannot be absolutely sure
776
Will Our B-P Sons Defend the Faith?
where the inspired words are. There is no tangible Word of God that is
infallible and inerrant in every way today. Every Hebrew text is impure,
every Greek text is impure, every translation is impure. There is simply
no such thing as a perfect Bible, no such thing as a perfect Written
Standard today. If that be the case, how can we be sure that Christianity is
true? If the Bible today contains mistakes, how can we know for certain
that our faith is sure? Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word
of God (Rom 10:17). But they insist that the Word of God is impure and
imperfect today because God did not preserve His words infallibly by
special providence. If we do not have an infallible and inerrant Scripture
today, then is not our faith vain? Are we still not in our sins? Christians
are a most miserable lot for sure (Ps 11:3)!
But our Protestant Confessions of Faith since the days of the
Reformation affirm that our Scriptures have been kept pure in all ages
(Westminster Confession, I:VIII). We have a perfect Bible today, and on
the basis of the doctrine of the special providential preservation of Gods
words in the original languages, Christians by the logic of faith can know
for sure where the inspired words today are found or located, available
and accessible (Heb 11:3, 6).
Despite the sure teaching of Scripture (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35),
and the clear testimony of the Protestant and Reformed Confessions
concerning the jot-and-tittle preservation of the Holy Scriptures, many
who call themselves Protestant and Reformed say that the VPP of the
Holy Scriptures is a new doctrine. They say that God did not promise
He will preserve His words infallibly to the last letter and syllable. Those
who teach the 100% perfection of the Bible today are branded as
heretics. They accuse those who teach that the Bible is 100% perfect
and without any mistakes as being ungodly and unscholarly. The
godly and scholarly man today is the one who agrees with the so-called
facts and evidences that the Bible today is only 85% or 90% or
99.9% for it contains some insignificant mistakes, and has built-in
redundancies. If asked about whether the Bible today has mistakes or
not, the best that Christians can say today is, There are no mistakes in
the Bible that should cause us any worry. According to deniers of the
VPP of the Holy Scriptures, claiming the Bible today has no mistakes
whatsoever is extreme and untenable.
777
If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do (Ps

11:3)? Our foundations are not destroyed and can never be. May weas
Bible-Presbyteriansremember our Roots, our Book, our Lord, our
Work, our Hope:
(1) Our Roots: The B-P Faith is rooted in the Protestant
Reformation and in Biblical Fundamentalism. Our roots tell us that
we need to keep on earnestly contending for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints (Jude 3). Calvin in the 16 th century and
McIntire in the 20th century had their own spiritual and doctrinal battles
to fight, and we have ours. In the 21st century, it is for the perfect
preservation of the Holy Scriptures. The 16 th and 20 th century
Reformation cry of Sola Scriptura (Scriptures Alone) must ring true even
today as we seek to defend
(2) Our Book: The B-P Faith is anchored solely on the divinely
inspired and supernaturally preserved Word of God. The Bible in our
hands today is not only 100% inspired but also 100% preserved (Ps 12:67, Matt 5:18, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Pet 1:23-25). The Bible today is in the 100%
inspired and 100% preserved Hebrew and Greek Scriptures on which the
Authorised KJV is based, and not in the corrupt Westcott and Hort text
underlying the inferior modern English versions. There is only one Bible
today (the inspired and preserved original language Bible), because we
have only one Lord.
(3) Our Lord: The B-P Faith believes in a Saviour who is 100%
God and 100% Man in one PersonJesus Christthe only living
and true God and Saviour of the world. Our Lord and Saviour who is
all-powerful and all-knowing surely could not have allowed any of His
inspired words (not just the doctrines) to be lost for He had promised to
preserve them to the last iota (Matt 5:18). Our Lord can only tell the
truth; He cannot lie (Rom 3:4). His promises are true and He has kept His
words. If this be the case, then what is our duty?
(4) Our Work: The B-P Faith is a militant faith which separates
from all forms of unbelief and apostasy. It is the duty of every
Christian to believe the Bible and defend the Bible wholeheartedly and
courageously against the insidious attacks on the Scriptures by neoevangelicalism which says the Bible is imperfectly inspired (no perfect
Bible in the past), and the neo-deism which says the Bible is imperfectly
preserved (no perfect Bible in the present). Confusion arises when no
778
Will Our B-P Sons Defend the Faith?
clear stand is taken, when lines are blurred. There is a vital need to take a
separatist stand and a declared position for the word of God, and for the
testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev 1:9 cf 2 Cor 6:14-7:1, 2 Thess 3:16-14).
We seek Gods approval, not mans. The compromiser is the one who
seeks the popular vote. But one with God is majority! It is no surprise
that neo-fundamentalists today are prepared to abandon the good name of
Biblical fundamentalism in favour of paleo-evangelicalism which is
actually the old neo-evangelicalism.
(5) Our Hope: The B-P Faith believes in the glorious promise
that once a Christian is saved, he is always saved. The God of the
Christian Bible who has promised to preserve every one of His inspired
Hebrew and Greek words has also promised to preserve every one of His
saints who have been redeemed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ
(John 10:27-29, Rom 8:28-39). We reject the mistaken Arminian view
that a Christian can fall into and out of gracesaved at one moment, and
unsaved the next. The Lord will never disown His children even when
they are sometimes disobedient, For whom the Lord loveth he
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth (Heb 12:6).
Every Christian will surely get to heaven. The Holy Spirit who indwells
every believer guarantees it (Eph 1:13-14).
We are confident that the foundations of our faith are sure and
secure. Our foundations are none other than (1) the Living Wordour
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and for
ever, and (2) the Written Wordthe 100% inspired and 100% preserved
Hebrew and Greek words of the Reformation Text that are incorruptible,
unchangeable, and forever infallible and inerrant, that form the basis of
all faithful translations of the Protestant Reformation.
As Bible-Presbyterians, we are BIBLE first, then Presbyterians.
But certain pastors and presbyters today override the Bible and criticise
the Bible they hold in their hands. The question and challenge of the hour
remains: Will history repeat itself? Will our sons deny the faith, or will
they defend the Faith? O Lord, save us from the apostasy to come!
779
PART VII
Testimonia
780
71
A HISTORY OF MY DEFENCE OF THE
KING JAMES VERSION
Edward F Hills
New Testament Textual Criticism at Westminster 1935-8
I have been interested in the problem of New Testament textual
criticism since my high school days in the 1920s. At that time I began to
read the commentaries of Charles Hodge, books that were part of my
Presbyterian heritage. I noticed that Hodge would sometimes mention
variant readings, most however, just to show that he was knowledgeable,
for he rarely departed from the common text (textus receptus) and our
English version (King James). Even so, my curiosity was aroused, so
that in 1931, when I was a sophomore at Yale University I took down C R
Gregorys Canon and Text of the New Testament from a library shelf and
began to read. I was dismayed at the large number of verses that,
according to Gregory and his teachers Westcott and Hort, must be
rejected from the Word of God. Nor was I much comforted by Gregorys
assurance that the necessary damage had been done and the rest of the
text had been placed on an unassailable basis. How could I be sure of
this? It seemed to me that the only way to gain assurance on this point
was to go to Westminster Seminary and study the subject under the
tutelage of Dr Machen, who preached in New Haven rather frequently in
those days, talking to Yale students at least twice.
Dr B B Warfield and the Providential Preservation of

the New Testament
When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at
Westminster (under Dr Stonehouse) I found that the first day or so was
mainly devoted to praising Dr B B Warfield. He was lauded for being
among the first to recognise the epoch making importance of the theory
of Westcott and Hort and for establishing the Westcott and Hort tradition
at Princeton Seminary, a tradition which was now being faithfully
781
perpetuated at Westminster Seminary. To me, however, all this was very

puzzling. Dr Warfield was a renowned defender of the Reformed faith
and of the Westminster Confession, yet in the department of New
Testament textual criticism he agreed entirely with liberals such as
Westcott, Hort and C R Gregory. He professed to agree with the
statement of the Westminster Confession that the Scriptures by Gods
singular care and providence had been kept pure in all ages, but it
was obvious that this providential preservation of the Scriptures was of
no importance to Dr Warfield when he actually began to deal with the
problems of the New Testament. When he engaged in New Testament
textual criticism, Dr Warfield ignored the providential preservation of the
Scriptures and treated the text of the New Testament as he would the text
of any book or writing. It matters not whether the writing before us be a
letter from a friend, or an inscription from Carchemish, or a copy of a
morning newspaper, or Shakespeare, or Homer, or the Bible.
I may be reading into my student days some of my later thinking,
but it seems to me that even at that time I could see that the logic of
Warfields naturalistic New Testament textual criticism led steadily
downward toward modernism and unbelief. For if the providential
preservation of the Scriptures was not important for the study of the New
Testament text, then it could not have been important for the history of
the New Testament text. And if it had not been important for the history
of the New Testament, then it must have been non-existent. It could not
have been a fact. And if the providential preservation of the Scriptures
was not a fact, why should the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures be
regarded as a fact? Why would God infallibly inspire a book and then
decline to preserve it providentially? For example, why would God
infallibly inspire the Gospel of Mark and then permit (as Warfield
thought possible) the ending of it (describing the resurrection
appearances of Christ) to be lost?
Why Dr Warfield was so Inconsistent: His Scholastic Heritage

Why was Dr Warfield so inconsistent in the realm of New Testament
textual criticism? Dr Van Tils course in apologetics enabled me to supply
the answer to this question. Dr Warfields inconsistency was part of his
scholastic inheritance, an error which had been handed down to him from
the middle-ages. Let me explain.
782
A History of My Defence of the King James Version
During the middle-ages the schoolmen tried to reconcile the

philosophy of Aristotle with the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church
by separating faith from reason, and praying from thinking. While
dealing with dogma, faith and prayer were appropriate, but the study of
philosophy was reasons province. So the medieval schoolmen
contended, and soon this doctrine of the separation of faith from reason
became generally accepted throughout the medieval Roman Catholic
Church.
The Protestant Reformers were fully occupied with other matters.
Hence they spent but little time combating this medieval Roman Catholic
error of the separation of faith and reason. Hence this false scholastic
doctrine survived the Reformation and soon became embedded in the
thinking of conservative Protestants everywhere. In the 18 th century,
Butler and Paley built their apologetic systems on this false principle of
the separation of faith and reason, and in the 19th century, at Princeton
and other conservative theological seminaries, this scholastic principle
even governed the curriculum and the way in which several subjects were
taught. Systematic theology, practical theology and homiletics were
placed in one box labeled FAITH. All the other subjects, including New
Testament textual criticism, biblical introduction, apologetics and
philosophy, were placed in another box labeled REASON.
We see now why Dr Warfield was so inconsistent. We see why he
felt himself at liberty to adopt the naturalistic theories of Westcott and
Hort, and did not perceive that in so doing he was contradicting the
Westminster Confession and even his own teaching in the realm of
systematic theology. The reason was that Dr Warfield kept these subjects
in separate boxes. Like an authentic, medieval scholastic, he kept his
systematic theology and the Westminster Confession in his FAITH box
and his New Testament textual criticism in his REASON box. Since he
never tried to mingle the contents of these two boxes, he was never fully
aware of the discrepancies in his thinking.
Dean Burgon: His Emphasis on the Providential

Preservation of Scripture
When I began to study New Testament textual criticism at
Westminster in 1935, I noticed another thing. Almost as much time was
spent in disparaging Dean Burgon as in praising Dr Warfield. This again
aroused my curiosity. Who was this Dean Burgon? Upon investigation, I
783
found that he had been a British scholar that had not fitted into the usual
scholastic mold. He had not kept his theology and his New Testament
textual criticism in two separate boxes, but had actually dared to make his
theology the guiding principle of his New Testament textual criticism.
For this he was pronounced unscholarly. Actually, he was merely
following the logic of faith. He believed that the New Testament was the
infallibly inspired Word of God. Hence it had been preserved down
through the ages by Gods special providence, not secretly in holes and
caves and on forgotten library shelves but publicly in the usage of Gods
Church. Hence the text found in the vast majority of the New Testament
manuscripts is the true text because this is the text that has been used by
Gods Church. As soon as I began to read Burgons works, I was
impressed by this logic of faith and also by the learned arguments by
which Burgon refuted the contention of Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott,
Hort, etc. Finally after some years of hesitation, I definitely committed
myself to his view in 1952.
But there are problems connected with Burgons view. Burgon was a
high Anglican who emphasised the role of bishops in the history of the
Church. He believed that the New Testament text had been preserved
mainly by the bishops of the ancient and medieval Church. Hence he
defended the text found in the majority of the New Testament
manuscripts, but he would not defend the printed Textus Receptus
because it had not been produced by bishops. He would, however, defend
the King James Version because this had been produced by bishops. Here
he was inconsistent because the King James Version is a translation of
the Textus Receptus.
We solve this problem by substituting the biblical doctrine of the
universal priesthood of believers for Burgons high Anglicanism. Just as
the Old Testament text was preserved by the Old Testament priests, so the
New Testament text was preserved by the universal priesthood of
believers, that is by true believers in every walk of life. And this
providential preservation did not cease with the invention of printing.
Hence the true text is found not only in the text of the majority of the
New Testament manuscripts but more especially in the Textus Receptus
and in faithful translations of the Textus Receptus, such as the King
James Version. In short, the Textus Receptus represents the God-guided
revision of the majority text.
784
A History of My Defence of the King James Version
Burgon mingled his faith with his New Testament textual criticism,
urging the providential preservation of the Scriptures as the chief
argument in favour of the traditional (majority) New Testament text. It
was for this breach of etiquette that he was regarded as not truly
scholarly. But isnt it possible to escape this stigma and still do a good
job of defending the majority text? Isnt it possible to drop Burgons
emphasis on the special, providential preservation of Scripture and rely
solely on more accurate arguments? Hodges, Pickering and Van Bruggen
seem to think this is possible, but in so thinking they are badly mistaken.
The same thing must be said of them that has just been said of Dr
Warfield. In spite of their good intentions, their thinking is pointed
toward modernism and unbelief. For if the providential preservation of
the holy Scriptures is unimportant for the defence of the New Testament
text, then it must be unimportant for the history of the New Testament
text and hence non-existent and not a fact. And if the providential
preservation of the Scriptures is not a fact, why should we suppose that
the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures is a fact? For inspiration and
preservation go together.
Hodges and Pickering try to substitute their theory of statistical
probability for Burgons doctrine of the special providential preservation
of the Scriptures. According to these two scholars, statistical probability
shows that whenever the transmission of an ancient book has been
normal, the best text is found in the majority of the manuscripts. The
transmission of the New Testament text has been normal. Hence the text
found in the majority of the New Testament manuscripts is the best New
Testament text.
In advancing this argument, however, Hodges and Pickering
contradict themselves. For they both claim to believe in the providential
preservation of the Scriptures, and if this providential preservation is a
fact, then something is true of the New Testament which is not true of the
transmission of other ancient books. Hence the transmission of the New
Testament cannot have been normal. And even from a naturalistic point
of view their argument is faulty. For the New Testament is a religious
book, and the transmission of a religious book is never normal because it
is transmitted mainly by believers who do not regard it as a normal book.
785
Scholasticism Versus the Logic of Faith

Conservative theological seminaries organised on the scholastic
model, separating faith and reason, inevitably become modernistic and
unbelieving. The area allotted to reason is steadily enlarged and that
remaining for faith correspondingly decreased. The box labeled FAITH is
emptied, while REASONS box is crammed full. This process of
deterioration cannot be avoided because as soon as we give reason an
equal place with faith in our thinking we have no true faith at all. God is
the Supreme Reality, the source of all things real, and therefore, we must
believe on Him as such. We must allow nothing else to be as real as God.
If we found even a part of our thinking on a set of rational principles
which are independent of God, then we are no longer believing but
doubting.
We see, therefore, that if Westminster Seminary is to preserve itself
from modernism, it must purge itself from all remnants of scholasticism.
It must rid itself completely from every tendency to separate reason from
faith. And especially must it do this in the department of New Testament
textual criticism. In this area particularly it must put away the naturalistic
theories of Westcott and Hort and others like them and follow the logic of
faith which runs like this: Because the Gospel is true and necessary for
the salvation of souls, the Bible which contains this Gospel was infallibly
inspired and has been preserved by Gods special providence, not secretly
in holes and caves, but publicly in the usage of Gods Church.
Moreover, this special providence did not cease with the invention
of printing. Therefore, the true New Testament text is found today in the
majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts, in the Textus
Receptus, and in the King James Version and other faithful translations of
the Textus Receptus. And therefore also this same preserving providence
is operating today through the agency of all true believers, however
humble, who retain and defend the King James Version.
786
72
FROM THE GNOSTIC CRITICAL GREEK TEXT
TO THE TRADITIONAL RECEIVED NEW
TESTAMENT TEXT
D A Waite
My First Experience with Greek at the University of Michigan
The first time I had anything to do with the Greek language was at
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. At that university, I
majored for my Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in Classical Greek and
Latin. I had begun as a pre-medical major, but when the Lord called me
to His service, I changed my major to Classical Greek and Latin. The
reason for this was that I intended to attend Dallas Theological Seminary
in Dallas, Texas, in order to prepare for the Lords work. That school
required 8 semester hours of Greek as a pre-admission requirement. Since
I had to take 8 semester hours of Greek, I decided to major in it at the
University of Michigan from 1945 through 1948.
My Language Studies Totals at Both the University of Michigan

and Dallas Theological Seminary
From 1948 through 1953, I was a resident student at Dallas
Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas. While there, I decided to major for
my Master of Theology (ThM) degree in New Testament Literature and
Exegesis. I took a total of 66 semester hours of Greek either at the
University of Michigan or at the Dallas Theological Seminary. In
addition to this, I took 25 semester hours of Hebrew, 11 semester hours of
Spanish, 8 semester hours of Latin, and 8 semester hours of French. This
is a total of 118 semester hours of languages from both these schools. For
my Doctor of Theology (ThD) degree, I majored in Bible Exposition, but
still was uninformed about what Greek text our King James Bible was
based upon.
787
The New Testament Greek Text Used at Dallas Theological

Seminary
The Greek text used during all five years in residence at Dallas
Theological Seminary (DTS) was that of Bishop Westcott and Professor
Hort. In fact, their very text was sold to us students at the DTS bookstore.
During my five years there at DTS, in both the required and the elective
courses that I took, there was never any mention that there were two
different basic Greek texts, the Gnostic Critical Greek Text which we
used and the Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Text. I was indoctrinated
as to their Greek Text, but not educated as to the other Greek Text.
My First Knowledge of the Traditional Received Greek Text

For the next 20 years, I remained in ignorance of the Traditional
Textus Receptus or Received Greek Text. I found out about this Received
Greek Text one day from one of my students at Shelton College, Cape
May, New Jersey where I was professor of Greek and Public Speaking.
The students name was Sandra Philips. She raised her hand in Greek
class one day and asked, Dr Waite, did you know there is a book in our
library that defends both the Traditional Greek Text and the King James
Bible? I replied honestly, No, Sandy, I am not aware of that book.
The book she was referring to was The Revision Revised by Dean John
William Burgon. Soon after that, I went to the Princeton University
Library in Princeton, New Jersey, read that book, and eventually put it
back into print along with four of Dean Burgons other books on this
subject. All five of these books have been published and are available
from the Dean Burgon Society. I have been the president of this group for
33 years now.
My Present Position on the New Testament Greek Text

For the last 40 years or more, I have been writing about, speaking
about, debating about, and defending the King James Bible and its
underlying Traditional Hebrew Masoretic Old Testament Words and its
underlying Traditional Textus Receptus Greek Words. At the same time, I
have been writing against, speaking against, debating against, and
refuting the modern Bible versions and the Gnostic Critical Greek Text
on which they are based. I would encourage every student, every pastor,
and every church member in all the churches of the world to follow the
788
From the Gnostic Text to the Received Text
same course of action that I followed when confronted with the truth of
the Traditional Received Greek Text: (1) accept it and defend completely
and (2) reject and refute completely the Gnostic Greek Text that has been
taught and continues to be taught in the churches, colleges, universities,
graduate schools, and seminaries all around the world.
789
73
FROM RSV TO KJV
Jeffrey Khoo
My first Bible was the RSV presented to me when I was baptised in
a Lutheran Church in 1974. Later I was given the Good News Bible for
Modern Man or TEV. Although I used the Good News Bible, my main
Bible was the RSV until I backslided from the Lord a couple of years
later.
By the grace of God, I was brought back to the Lord in 1979-80. The
independent, Brethren church that I attended allowed the use of any
version. I enjoyed studying the Bible through the excellent Sunday
School programme this church offered, and grew in my Christian faith.
Someone gave me the NASB. I read the whole NASB from cover to
cover, marking it heavily. I had no knowledge about the Bible Version
issue in those days, and did not realise that the NASB had omitted certain
parts of Gods Word. Now I know the NASB, though a literal translation,
is based on the mutilated text of Westcott and Hort and hence unreliable.
When I was in Junior College (1981-2), I was introduced to the NIV.
Although I referred to it occasionally I never got used to the NIV,
preferring the NASB.
When I signed up for the Cambridge A Level Divinity course in
junior college, my teacher, an Anglican, recommended the RSV. I refused
to follow. This teacher also taught the liberal view that Isaiah was not
written by Isaiah himself, but by two or more Isaiahs. I refused to follow,
and argued strongly against those Deutero- and Trito-Isaianic views. My
teacher warned me that I would not do well in my Cambridge exams if I
persisted in taking a strictly conservative view of just one Isaiah. He
consistently gave me low grades. When the final Cambridge
examinations came, I purposed in my heart to honour the Lord with my
answers. I believe in Gods promise that He would honour those who
honour Him. When the results finally came, I scored a distinction in
Divinity, and my overall results were good enough to earn a place at the
National University.
790
From RSV to KJV
It was during my National Service days, during my Basic Military

Training stint, that I used an old pocket-sized KJV that belonged to my
mother. It was small enough for me to put it into my ammunition pouch
whenever I went out for field training. I would read my Bible whenever I
had free time. Indeed, the Bible was my spiritual ammunition during
those trying army days. I found the KJV so easy to remember and to
memorise.
I began to use the KJV seriously only in my Bible College days.
After receiving Gods call to full-time Christian service, I decided to train
for the ministry at the Far Eastern Bible College which uses the KJV.
This was in 1985. The principalRev Dr Timothy Towwas using a
Scofield KJV. I got myself a New Scofield KJV, and used it with great
delight throughout my four years of theological training.
It was in FEBC that I learned to love the KJV. In my study of
Biblical Greek and Hebrew, I discovered that the KJV was an extremely
literal and accurate translation of the original language texts. Also the
many corruptions and mistranslations of the modern versions like the
RSV and NIV were thoroughly exposed and refuted by Rev Tow. Rev
Tow proved to us students how the RSV and NIV attacked the virgin
birth of Christ in Isa 7:14, the former by replacing virgin with young
woman, and the latter by suggesting that the virgin birth was not unique
since it was fulfilled not just by Christ but also by the son of the
prophets second wife. Rev Tow also soundly refuted the NIVs twisting
of the Hebrew text in Isa 49:12 to read Aswan (Egypt) instead of Sinim
(China).
Although FEBC during my student days took a strong stand for the
KJV, the faculty seemed to be ignorant of the textual problem that
surrounded the modern versions. In our Intermediate and Advanced
Greek classes we used the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament.
I did not know that this Greek text did not square with the KJV, neither
did my lecturers tell me. It was not until I studied New Testament
Introduction in 1987 that I was exposed to Westcott and Hort and to
textual criticism. In that course, the lecturer taught the so-called
eclectic method of textual criticism which followed basically the
Westcott-Hort paradigm. Bruce Metzgers book The Text of the New
Testament was required reading. (I still have a copy of the textual critical
assignment that I had to complete which seemed a futile exercise to me
then.) I was really unhappy about the so-called science of textual
791
criticism. This was because textual criticism required me to judge the

Bible. I found the textual critical rules to be extremely subjective.
After I graduated from FEBC, the Lord opened a door for me to
further my studies in the United States. I went first to Grace Theological
Seminary where I worked for my MDiv. At Grace, I was taught again the
eclectic method, this time by Dr Homer Kent. Dr Kent was one of the
NIV translators. He spent significantly more time on Westcott and Hort
and their method than on Dean Burgon. He recommended J Harold
Greenlees Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism which I
made it a point to buy, but did not mention any of E F Hillss books in
defence of the Textus Receptus.
After I completed my studies at Grace, I went to Biblical
Theological Seminary for my STM. There I read an anti-KJV tract
written by Dr Allan MacRae (founder of Biblical Seminary) and his
student Dr Robert Newman. Biblical was and still is a pro-Westcott/Hort
seminary.
Thankfully, Trinity Theological Seminary where I earned my PhD
used the KJV. It was a separatist school. My dissertation, The Four
Gospels in Unison: A Synthetic Harmony of the Four Gospels in the King
James Version with Exegetical Harmonisation and Exposition of Select
Parallel and Difficult Texts, was approved and well received by the
seminary, and part of my dissertation was published in the seminary
bulletin.
When I returned from the States, I was assigned to teach Greek
Reading at Far Eastern Bible College. Since I had studied Greek using
the UBSGNT from 1985-1992, I continued to use it in my Greek classes.
In December 1992, Calvary B-P Church invited Dr D A Waite to speak on
the KJV issue. It was the first time I had heard of this man, and his book
Defending the King James Bible. Dr Waite who earned a ThD from
Dallas Theological Seminary and a PhD from Purdue University wrote a
320-page scholarly defence of the KJV which I read with delight. I took a
greater interest in the textual issue, and read Edward F Hillss The King
James Version Defended. Through Hillss book I discovered the sorely
neglected doctrine of biblical preservation. It was a doctrine affirmed in
the Westminster Confession of Faith. As a Bible-Presbyterian, I was
flabbergasted that I did not know this doctrine. I was never taught it. I
knew well the doctrine of biblical inspiration, but had never heard of
792
From RSV to KJV
biblical preservation. This doctrine is clearly taught in Ps 12:6-7, Matt

5:18, 24:35. I felt like the parabolic man who had found the pearl of great
price. What a precious doctrine! Away with the UBSGNT, I now use the
Textus Receptusthe preserved NT text that underlies the KJVas my
Greek Text.
Singapore, July 1, 2003
793
74
TEXTUAL RECEPTION OR TEXTUAL
CRITICISM?
Testimonies from Students Who Took the DVBC Course
on The Bible Stands at FEBC from April 28 to
May 3, 2008
I am thankful to God for being gracious to me for I, being a young
believer and without proper guidance on the doctrine of Verbal Plenary
Preservation, was stumbled by the vast differences modern Bible versions
share, and disturbed by the disharmony between different versions on the
same Bible passage and the many instances whereby scission of Gods
Word was done, and was left with the question on which truly is the Word
of God, and how would one know. By the grace of God, He brought me
out of confusion and vexation when He led me to learn of the source of
the problem which lies in the types of manuscripts used for the
translation of the different Bible versions.
Reviewing the course, I am filled with awe and gratitude to my
Almighty God who not only has inspired His words in the original
autographs but has also by His singular care and providence kept them
pure in all ages in the faithfully copied apographs. I am, at the same time,
also filled with great indignation for Westcott and Hort and the editors of
the Critical Text, who have taken Gods Word lightly and without due
reverence, and in employing their humanistic textual criticism to Gods
sacred Word, like they would for any other literature, giving rise to the
modern versions based on corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts that seek to
cast doubt on Gods Word, scissor out Gods Word and attack the vital
doctrines of the Christian Faith. LCH
Having gone through the course, I am even more convinced of the
VPP stand, without which a floodgate of unthinkable errors would just
swarm over us. No one can stop such a deluge without the perfect Word
of God. The logic of faith based upon the Word of God is the best
safeguard against such a catastrophe. It is a tragic thing that anti-VPP
794
Textual Reception or Textual Criticism?
Christians just choose to ignore what is clearly taught in the Bible

concerning the perfect preservation of Gods Word (Matt 5:18). They
rather follow human reason to deal with the issue of preservation and end
up with lots of loopholes for the enemy to attack. What an embarrassing
and pathetic situation! I am very happy that VPP advocates do not isolate
themselves but are able to accept others who do not think that the Bible
has any errors. It is also important for us to distance ourselves from
Westcott and Hort and to reject textual criticism which basically puts
man above God in determining the words of God. WCL
I count it a great blessing to have this opportunity to spend this
week on the in-depth study of the Bible issue, with a focus on the
examination of the fallacious practice of textual criticism, against the
God-honouring method of textual reception. Much literature continues to
be written in attack of VPP by both leaders and lay-persons, articulating
their ire at the apparent trouble that VPP has caused and how seemingly
heretical it is. Such continual onslaught can be wearisome, discouraging
and frustrating. It is therefore with much joy that I sat through the
lectures and reviewed once again the various arguments and perspectives
of the whole textual debate. I particularly enjoyed the interaction with the
various authors of varying perspectives, like that of Dan Wallace, Bart
Ehrman, Edward Hills and others. Fundamentalisms Folly by Peter Van
Kleeck was also a rather refreshing read, for he brought to light many
authors and theologians of old who in the past also spoke clearly of the
doctrine of Bible preservation, clearly proving that it is not a new
doctrine, but one held dearly to by fundamentalists in the past as well. Of
much instructional value and encouragement (and also entertainment!)
was Dr Dell Johnsons clear and passionate defence of the KJV and
preservation. KLK
When I was exposed to the Bible issue and debate, I thought it was
something minor and there was nothing to worry about. This is because
from the beginning I took for granted with a childlike faith that nobody
would dare to criticise the Bible. As time went on I came to realise that it
was no small matter. I came to realise that those who hold on to a
conservative, fundamentalist understanding of the Bible would one day
deny the perfection of the Bible. Not only that but I have witnessed
through this course how academic scholarship and pride may turn ones
simple faith of believing on the Bible to a complicated and unattainable
approach of trying to ascertain the words of God by what is called
795
textual criticism. This was well exemplified by Bart Ehrman who once
professed to be a believer, but ended up being agnostic. This is a
warning to me how I ought to submit to the authority of the Bible and not
the ideas of men. JPK
Ehrmans testimony is a frightening one. How one man is able to
fall from a conservative evangelical background into the dark pits of
agnosticism, is morbidly fascinating. It is almost a classic case of
how someone from even a rather sound, evangelical background, from
Moody Bible Institute, can fall into the depths of such despair. One
lesson learnt is to preach the true gospel. Apparently in his case, it does
not seem that he has been saved, and perhaps, this born again
experience that he barely defines, seems to be more of an experience,
then actual conversion within. The human tendency to use our corrupted
logic can only result in a downward spiral if it is not saved by faith and
the guidance of the Spirit. JT
It is enlightening to read and study the testimony of Bart D Ehrman
as he testifies with all honesty how a weak foundation in the biblical
doctrines of inspiration and preservation can lead one to deny the faith. I
thank the Lord for the 8 principles of identifying the preserved text of
Scripture. I thank the Lord for the video on Dr Dell Johnsons defence of
the KJV and the Traditional Text. Also, the quotation of Francis
Turretins Systematic Theology was most enlightening, showing that
before Warfields time, conservative Christians held to the view of the
infallibility and inerrancy of the apographs and not autographs which we
do not have today. The statement by the Trinitarian Bible Society was
also important, Therefore these texts [i.e. Hebrew Masoretic Text and
Greek Textus Receptus] are definitive and the final point of reference in
all the Societys work. It is the same approach that I learned in FEBC
Greek classes in reading and exegesis. LAW
One must have the correct presuppositions as regards the Bible and
in the study of the Bible or else the outcome can be disastrous. Having
accepted the Biblical doctrine of the Verbal Plenary Preservation of the
Scriptures, I can now study the Word of God without ever having to
question whether a certain passage is correct or not or whether it contains
mistakes or not. This doctrine of VPP really gives the believer the full
confidence to study, teach and preach the Word of God with all authority.
DC
796
Textual Reception or Textual Criticism?
Frankly, I was really shocked in this course by a phrase

Autographs in Apographs because I never thought about the autographs
when I was thinking about the inspiration and preservation of the Bible.
Yes, it is very simple, but wonderful. I was focusing always on the
materials, not words. By the grace of God, in the Holy Spirit, through the
logic of faith, I have recognised the most important matter of the Verbal
Plenary Preservation of the Bible is the words, not materials in which the
words have been written. PSK
One precious lesson I learned is that anything that exalts and
pleases God is right, and anything that takes away the glory of God must
be false. Gods Word is always true and Gods truth always stands. God
makes no mistakes and we can never blame God. Man may change but
God never changes. The key to knowing and finding God is faith. I learnt
that the modernist scholars have a very low view of God and His Word
and is wise in their own conceits. AK
I have gained a more in-depth understanding of the whole issue
surrounding the preservation of Gods Word. I never knew that there are
so many people out there in other parts of the world who are fighting for
this fundamental doctrine, who take the same stand as us. I am also
impressed by Burgon, Hills, Waite and many others who spared no effort
in fighting this battle. The books and articles they had written on this
subject displayed such strong evidences against anti-preservationists, and
clearly proved that God had kept His promise in preserving His words to
the very jot and tittle. Yet, the very Bible we hold in our very hands
today, the text in the original languages underlying the KJV, and the
testimony of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, are the strongest proof of them
all.
The Bible is the strongest proponent of its own preservation, with no
other authority above it. It is sad to see men like Metzger, Warfield,
Ehrman choose their own naturalistic and sinful thinking over faith in
Gods promise. But apostasy is indeed what the Bible has warned of. I
also learnt it is very dangerous to doubt Gods word and practise textual
criticism, for it may ultimately lead one to atheism and a denial of God.
One other thing I learnt is the importance of being consistent in ones
arguments. And I thank God that ours is a faithful and consistent position,
with God as our starting point, by the logic of faith, leading us to His
preserved words. HXW
797
This course is a balanced presentation of both camps wherein each

stand was given the opportunity to defend its position. I thank God for
raising up faithful men to critique the popular but ungodly works of
Westcott and Hort. I believe without doubt that the KJV is the most
faithful translation using the Textus Receptus which is in harmony with
the words of the Autographs, supported by the promise of God in the
Bible, tested by time, received by the early Christians, coming finally to
us by men providentially moved and guided by God in copying the
Scriptures which are superior in doctrine and theology because they
declare and point only to the glory of the Almighty God. DDC
798
Recommended Sources
799
RECOMMENDED SOURCES
Half the knowledge is to know where to find it.
Anderson G W, and D E Anderson. A Textual Key to the New Testament: A List of
Omissions and Changes. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1993.
________. Why 1 John 5:7-8 Is in the Bible. London: Trinitarian Bible Society,
1993.
Barnett, Robert J. The Word of God on Trial. Asheville: Revival Literature, 1981.
Brandenburg, Kent. Editor. Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the
Perfect Preservation of Scripture. El Sobrante: Pillar and Ground
Publishing, 2003.
Bruggen, Jacob van. The Ancient Text of the New Testament. Winnipeg: Premier
Publishing, 1976.
Burgon, John William. The Causes of Corruption of the Traditional Text of the
Holy Gospels. Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998 reprint.
________. Inspiration and Interpretation. Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society
Press, 1999 reprint.
________. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Vindicated against Recent Critical
Objectors and Established. Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, nd
reprint.
________. The Revision Revised. Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press,
2000 reprint.
________. The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established.
Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1998 reprint.
Clark, Gordon H. Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism. 2d edition. Jefferson:
The Trinity Foundation, 1990.
Cloud, David W. The Bible Version Question/Answer Database. Port Huron: Way
of Life Literature, 2005.
________.Faith vs the Modern Bible Versions. Port Huron: Way of Life
Literature, 2005.
________. For Love of the Bible: The Battle for the King James Version and the
Received Text from 1800 to Present. Oak Habor: Way of Life Literature,
1995.
________. The Modern Bible Version Hall of Shame. Port Huron: Way of Life
Literature, 2005.
800
Recommended Sources
________. Myths about Modern Bible Versions. Oak Habor: Way of Life
Literature, 1999.
________. Things Hard to be Understood. 3d edition. Port Huron: Way of Life
Literature, 2001.
Coston Sr, Stephen A. King James the VI of Scotland and the I of England:
Unjustly Accused? St Petersburg: KonigsWort, 1996.
DeVietro, Kirk. Cleaning-Up Hazardous Materials: A Refutation of Gail
Riplingers Hazardous Materials. Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society,
2010.
James, Kevin. The Corruption of the Word: The Failure of Modern New
Testament Scholarship. Williamsburg: Micro-Load Press, 1990.
Khoo Jeffrey. Kept Pure in All Ages: Recapturing the Authorised Version and the
Doctrine of Providential Preservation. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible
College Press, 2001.
________. KJV Questions and Answers. Singapore: Bible Witness Literature
Ministry, 2003.
Fuller, David Otis. Editor. Counterfeit or Genuine? Mark 16? John 8? Grand
Rapids: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, nd.
________. Editor. True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined.
Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1983.
________. Editor. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Institute for Biblical Textual
Studies, 1970.
Grudem, Wayne. Whats Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations?
Libertyville: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1997.
Hills, Edward F. Believing Bible Study. 2d edition. Des Moines: The Christian
Research Press, 1977.
________. The King James Version Defended. Des Moines: The Christian
Research Press, 1984.
Holland, Thomas. Crowned with Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to
Authorized Version. Lincoln: Writers Club Press, 2000.
Johnson, Dell. The Bible Preserved from Satans Attack. Produced by Pensacola
Christian College. 1996. DVD.
________. The Bible: The Text Is the Issue. Produced by Pensacola Christian
College. 2006. DVD.
________. The Leaven in Fundamentalism: A History of the Bible Text Issue in
Fundamentalism. Produced by Pensacola Christian College. 2006. DVD.
________. PCCs Response to Coalition Critics: A History of the Bible Text Issue
in Fundamentalism. Produced by Pensacola Christian College. 2006. DVD.
Kleeck, Peter W van. Fundamentalisms Folly? A Bible Version Debate Case
Study. Grand Rapids: Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, 1998.
801

Kulus, Chester. One Tittle Shall in No Wise Pass: Destroying the Scholarly Myth
that God Did Not Inspire the Vowels of the Old Testament. Cleveland: The
Old Paths Publications, 2009.
________. Those So-Called Errors: Debunking the Liberal, New Evangelical,
and Fundamentalist Myth That You Should Not Hear, Receive, and Believe
All the Numbers of Scripture. Newington: Emmanuel Baptist Theological
Press, 2003.
Kwok Dennis, and the Faculty of Far Eastern Bible College. VPP of the Bible: A
Course on the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation. Cleveland: The
Old Paths Publications, 2008.
Letis, Theodore P. The Ecclesiastical Text. 2d edition. Philadelphia: The Institute
for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 2000.
________. Edward Freer Hillss Contribution to the Revival of the Ecclesiastical
Text. Philadelphia: The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical
Studies, 1987.
________. Editor. The Majority Text. Philadelphia: The Institute for Renaissance
and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1987.
________. A New Hearing for the Authorized Version. 2d edition. Philadelphia:
The Institute for Renaissance and Reformation Biblical Studies, 1997.
Macgregor, Alan J. Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV,
ESV and NKJV. Wiltshire: The Bible League, 2004.
McClure, Alexander. The Translators Revived: A Biographical Memoir of the
Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible. Mobile: R E Publications,
nd.
McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How
It Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 2001.
Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: A Tracing of the
Longevity of the Comma Johanneum , with Evaluations of Arguments
against Its Authenticity. Tempe: Comma Publications, 1995.
Miller, Edward. A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.
Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society Press, 2003 reprint.
Moorman, Jack. 8,000 Differences between the NT Greek Words of the King
James Bible and the Modern Versions: A Scholarly Research Document.
Collingswood: Bible for Today and Dean Burgon Society, 2006.
________. Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret. Los Osos: Fundamental
Evangelistic Association, nd.
________. Early Manuscripts, Church Fathers and the Authorized Version.
Collingswood: The Bible for Today Press, 2005.
________. Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible.
Collingswood: Dean Burgon Society, 1999.
802
Recommended Sources
________. When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text. Collingswood: The
Bible for Today Press, 1988.
Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn
Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1985.
________. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. 2d edition. Volume Two:
Holy Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Norton, David. A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Owen, John. Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Soli Deo Gloria Publications,
1994.
Paisley, Ian. My Plea for the Old Sword: The English Authorised Version (KJV).
Greenville: Ambassador Publications, 1997.
Punch, John David. The Pericope Adulterae: Theories of Insertion and
Omission. Doctor of Theology dissertation. Radboud University
Nijmegan, 2010.
Radmacher, Earl, and Zane C Hodges. The NIV Reconsidered. Dallas: Redencion
Viva, 1990.
Raper, Christopher. It Is Written: Greek Perfect Tense of Gegraptai Supports
Preservation of Scripture. Pensacola: Pensacola Theological Seminary,
2002.
Ray, James Jasper. God Wrote Only One Bible. Junction City: The Eye Opener
Publishers, 1980.
Ryken, Leland. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible
Translation. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002.
Skariah, George. The Biblical Doctrine of the Perfect Preservation of the Holy
Scriptures. Doctor of Theology dissertation. Far Eastern Bible College,
Singapore, 2005.
Sorenson, David H. Gods Perfect Book: The Inspiration, Preservation and
Alteration of the Bible. Duluth: Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2009.
________. Touch Not the Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation. Duluth:
Northstar Baptist Ministries, 2001.
Spence, O Talmadge. The King James Version Case. Dunn: Foundations Bible
College, 1999.
Streeter, Lloyd L. Seventy-Five Problems with Central Baptist Seminarys Book
The Bible Version Debate. LaSalle: First Baptist Church of LaSalle, 2001.
Stringer, Phil. The Real Story of King James I. Ft Pierce: Faith Baptist Church
Publications, 2000.
________. The Scripture Cannot Be Broken: The Verbal Preservation of
Scripture. Ft Pierce: Faith Baptist Church Publications, 2000.
Strouse, Thomas, and Jeffrey Khoo. Reviews of the Book From the Mind of God
to the Mind of Man. Pensacola: Pensacola Theological Seminary, 2001.
803

Sturz, Harry A. The Byzantine Text-Type and New Testament Textual Criticism.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984.
Surrett, Charles L. Which Greek Text? The Debate among Fundamentalists. Np,
nd.
Tow, S H. Beyond Versions: A Biblical Perspective of Modern English Bibles.
Singapore: King James Productions, 1998.
Tow, Timothy and Jeffrey Khoo. Theology for Every Christian: A Systematic
Theology in the Reformed and Premillennial Tradition of J Oliver Buswell.
Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College Press, 2007.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Translated by George Musgrave
Giger. Edited by James T Dennison Jr. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing, 1992.
Waite, D A. Burgons Warnings on Revision of the Textus Receptus and the King
James Bible. Collingswood: The Bible for Today Press, 1998.
________. The Case for the King James Bible. Collingswood: The Bible for
Today Press, 1998.
________. Central Seminary Refuted on Bible Versions. Collingswood: The
________.A Critical Answer to James Prices King James Onlyism: 225 of
Prices Statements Analyzed Carefully for Errors, Misrepresentations, and
Serious Falsehoods. Collingswood: The Bible for Today Press, 2009.
________. A Critical Answer to Michael Sprouls Gods Word Preserved: 275 of
Sprouls Statements Analyzed Carefully for Errors, Misrepresentations, and
Serious Falsehoods. Collingswood: The Bible for Today Press, 2008.
________. Dean Burgon Society Deserves Its Name: Ten Reasons Why.
Collingswood: The Dean Burgon Society Press, 2001.
________. Defending the King James Bible: A Fourfold Superiority. 3d edition.
________. General Editor. The Defined King James Bible. Collingswood: The
________. Foes of the King James Bible Refuted. Collingswood: The Bible for
Today Press, 1997.
________. Fundamentalist Deception on Bible Preservation. Collingswood: The
________. Fundamentalist Misinformation on Bible Versions. Collingswood:
The Bible for Today Press, 2000
________. Heresies of Westcott and Hort. Collingswood: The Bible for Today
Press, 1979.
________. The New King James Version Compared to the King James Version
and the Underlying Hebrew and Greek Texts. Collingswood: The Bible for
Today Press, 1990.
804
Recommended Sources
________. Westcott and Horts Greek Text and Theory Refuted. Collingswood:
The Bible for Today Press, 1996.
Waite Jr, D A. The Comparative Readability of the Authorized Version.
________. The Doctored New Testament. Collingswood: The Bible for Today
Press, 2003.
Watts, Malcolm H. The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the
Biblical Text. London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1998.
________. The New King James Version: A Critique. London: Trinitarian Bible
Society, 2008.
Whitaker, William. Disputations on Holy Scripture. Orlando: Soli Deo
Publications, nd.
Williams, H D. The Attack on the Canon of Scripture: A Polemic against Modern
Gnostics. Cleveland: The Old Paths Publications, 2008.
________. Hearing the Voice of God: Related to Revelation, Conscience,
Inspiration, Illumination, and Postmodernism. Cleveland: The Old Paths
Publications, 2008.
________. The Lie That Changed the Modern World: A Refutation of the
Modernist Cry Poly-Scripturae. Collingswood: The Bible for Today
Press, 2004.
________. The Pure Words of God: Where to Find Gods Words Which We Are
Commanded to Receive and Keep. Cleveland: The Old Paths Publications,
2008.
________. Word-For-Word Translating of the Received Texts: Verbal Plenary
Translating. Collingswood: The Bible For Today Press, 2007.
________. Wycliffe Controversies. Cleveland: The Old Paths Publications, 2008.
805

Forever Infallible in Errant (Jeffrey Khoo)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Forever Infallible in Errant (Jeffrey Khoo)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Forever

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

Far Eastern Bible College Press

Title: Forever Infallible and Inerrant: Remembering Gods Extraordinary

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

2 Earnestly Contend for the Faith .................................. 5

3 Revisionism Ancient and Modern ............................... 9

4 Gods Word for the End Time ................................... 11

5 A 21st Century Reformation Movement for the

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

6 Is the Preservation of Scripture a Doctrine Worth

7 FEBC Faculty United on Verbal Plenary

9 Three Heaven and Earth Moving Statements from

10 Gods Special Providential Care of the Text of

11 The Providence of God ............................................ 38

12 Seven Biblical Axioms in Ascertaining the

13 Inspiration, Preservation, and Translations: In

14 Canon, Texts, and Words: Lost and Found or

15 The Holy Spirit and the Word of God ................... 117

16 A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal

17 Biblical Presuppositions in Approaching the

18 Why We Should Regard the Bible as

19 If We Reject the Doctrine of the Perfect

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

20 Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa? A Case

21 Attacks on the Authority of Scripture by

22 The Deadly Sin of Attacking the Bible ................ 170

23 The Dean Burgon Oath .......................................... 175

PART III Biblia

25 Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?

26 Jesus View of the Holy Scripture: An Exposition

27 Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt

28 Lost Words in our Bible?....................................... 205

29 Mistakes in the Bible? ........................................... 211

30 Gods Word Is Settled For Ever (Psalm 119:89) ... 216

31 Undermining Gods Word by Subtle Study

32 Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh? ...................... 231

33 The Numbers in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7: A

34 NIV Turns Land of Sinim into Region of

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

35 Are the Last Twelve Verses of Mark Really

36 The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11):

37 A Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and

38 The Word of God for All Nations .......................... 253

40 My Reply to James D Prices Review of

41 Non-Ruckmanite Answers to Anti-KJV

42 Can Verbal Plenary Inspiration Do Without

43 Inspired Textual Criticism? ................................... 386

44 Bruce Metzger and the Curse of Textual

45 The Blasphemy and Deception of The Da Vinci

46 Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique

47 The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism:

48 Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism,

Forever Infallible and Inerrant

49 Multiversions Onlyism: A Critique of

50 Preservation of the Bible: Providential or

51 Errors in the King James Version? A Response

52 A Public Response to Mr Lim Seng Hoos Open

53 Contending in Truth, and Truth Affirms the VPP

54 In Defence of the Far Eastern Bible College, the

55 Bearing True Witness: A Response to Bearing

56 Biblical Authority: A Response to Sermons by

57 Did God Write Only One Bible? ........................... 648